Vidhiviveka 4

4

viṣayā'vabodhanānna doṣa iti cet ? na . tanmātrasyā'nyatrā'pi tulyatvāt . codanālakṣaṇo'rtho dharma ityabhyupagamā'narthakyāt . śabdasvātantrye ca niyogato'vaśyaṃ pravṛttiḥ syāt . tathā cā'kurvan vihitaṃ karmeti nirviṣayaṃ syāt . na hi tadānīṃ balavadanilasalilaughanudyamānasyevecchā'pi tantraṃ pravṛttiṃ prati puruṣasya . jñāpakaśca svarūpakarmasambandhaviṣayajñānamapekṣate . liṅādisvarūpaṃ ca pravṛtteḥ kārakamityanupayuktasvarūpatatkarmasambandhaviṣayasaṃvido 'pi puṃsaḥ pravṛttiprasaṅgaḥ .

If it is objected that there is no fault because it makes known the object? No, because that mere fact is equally present elsewhere too; [and] because the acceptance that 'religious duty is an object characterized by an injunctive Vedic prompt' would be purposeless. Moreover, if the word were independent, activity would inevitably occur by mandate. And thus, [the scriptural statement] 'not doing the prescribed action...' would become devoid of scope; for then, just like one propelled by a powerful blast of wind or a flood of water, even the desire of a person would not be sovereign with respect to activity. Furthermore, an informative indicator requires knowledge of the essential form, the action, the relation, and the object; whereas if the essential form of the optative affix and the like were a productive factor of activity, there would be the undesirable consequence that even a person who has not cognized its essential form, its action, the relation, and the object would engage in activity.