सिद्धेऽर्थेऽपि वेदस्य प्रामाण्यमेष्टव्यम्— 'स्वपक्षसाधनैरकार्यमर्थजातमाह चेत् ।तथा परोऽपि वेदः चेच्छ्रुतिः परात्मदृङ् न किम् ।' इत्यभियुक्तैरुक्तम् ।अन्यान्वितस्वार्थे पदानां सामर्थ्यं न कार्यान्वितस्वार्थे, तथा सत्यर्थवादानामनन्वयप्रसङ्गात् अन्वयबुद्धेः स्तुतित्वात् ।न हि भवति 'वायव्यं श्वेतमालभेत भूतिकामो वायुर्वै क्षेपिष्ठा देवता' इति ।रागस्यैव प्रवर्तकत्वम्, न नियोगस्य ।तथा च श्रुतिः— 'अथो खल्वाहुः काममय एवायं पुरुषः इति स यथाकामो भवति तत्क्रतुर्भवति यत्क्रतुर्भवति तत्कर्म कुरुते यत्कर्म तदभिसंपद्यते' ।तथा च स्मृतिरपि— 'अकामतः क्रिया काचिदृश्यते नेह कस्यचित् ।यद्यद्धि कुरुते कर्म तत्तत्कामस्य चेष्टितम् ।' इति ।'काम एष क्रोध एषः' इति ।अन्यपराणामपि मन्त्रार्थवादानां प्रामाण्यमङ्गीकर्तव्यम् ।तेषामप्रामाण्यकथनेन उरगत्वं गतवान्नहुषः ।तत्कथम् ?—
In plain words
Even when a truth is already established, the validity of the Veda must be recognized. As the masters have declared: 'If a text speaks of an existing reality through its own proofs, why should not another Vedic passage do the same when it reveals the supreme Self?' Words convey meanings related to existent things, not merely to ritual action; otherwise, explanatory scriptural passages would be meaningless, since their purpose is eulogistic. Desire alone is the driving force of human action, not abstract commandment. As scripture says: 'This person is made of desire; as his desire is, so is his resolve; as his resolve is, so is his deed, and whatever deed he does, that he attains.' And smriti confirms: 'No action in this world springs from a source other than desire; whatever a person does is the work of desire.' One must accept the validity of all scriptural passages, even those whose primary contexts differ; for by denying their validity, King Nahusha fell into serpenthood.
Close to the Sanskrit
Even when the meaning is established, the validity of the Veda must be accepted—as competent authorities have said: 'If a text speaks of non-actionable existent reality through proofs establishing its own side, why should not another Veda do so if its revelation sees the supreme Self?' Words have the capacity for meaning connected to another [existent entity], not to action; if it were otherwise, explanatory passages would suffer from lack of connection, since the understanding of syntactical connection serves as praise. Nor is it that 'One desiring prosperity should sacrifice a white animal dedicated to Vayu; Vayu is indeed the swiftest deity' [functions as a mere injunction]. Desire alone is the instigator, not a commandment. And so says scripture: 'Then indeed they say: This person is made of desire only; as he is desiring, so he becomes; as he is resolved, so he performs action; whatever action he performs, that he attains.' And so too smriti: 'No action whatsoever is seen in this world without desire; whatever action a person does, that is the activity of desire.' 'This is desire, this is anger.' The validity of mantra and explanatory passages, even those having other primary purports, must be accepted. By stating their invalidity, Nahusha attained serpenthood. How is that?