buddhist-nlp/tatpa-noisy · Datasets at Hugging Face

sanskrit stringlengths 4 615	english stringlengths 2 1.3k
yathā ghaṭāder andhakārāpagame sati puro 'vasthitasyānabhīṣṭasyāpyupalabdhir bhavatyeva yogyadeśāvathānāt //	e.g. when the enveloping darkness is removed, the Jar that is there, even though its perception may not be desired, becomes perceived, because it lies in a perceptible spot.
yaduktam ---``tatra sarvaiḥ pratīyeta śabdaḥ saṃskriyate yadi //" iti, tatra na doṣo yasmād eko 'pi śabdaḥ kiñcit puruṣaṃ pratyasaṃskṛtaḥ kañcitprati saṃskṛtaḥ /	so that only one condition should be admitted, no matter whether it be cognised, or not cognised, by all. [The following might be urged] It has been asserted (in Text 2157) that ‘if Sound were embellished, it would be heard by all’; but this incongruity does not arise, because even a single Sound may be embellished for one man, while not-embellished for another;
yathā ekā strī vyapekṣābhedān mātā ca duhitā cetyāha saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛtatve iti /	just as the same woman, through difference in relationship, may be mother to one and daughter to another person. The answer to this is as follows: [see verse 2167above]
śabdasyaikatve sati saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛtatve dve avasthe niṣparyāyeṇa na prāpnutaḥ, avasthāyā avasthātur abhedāt, avasthātṛsvarūpavadavasthayorapyekatvam eva prāpnoti /	The Sound being one, the two conditions of being ‘embellished’ and ‘not embellished’ cannot belong to it, at the same time; because the condition cannot differ from the conditioned; so that, as the conditioned ‘Sound’ is one only, its condition (embellished or otherwise) must be one only.
yat punar ekā strī mātā cocyate duhitā ceti / tatra śabda eva kevalaṃ bhinno na vastu /	As regards the case of one and the same woman being both Mother and Daughter, there it is the name only that differs, not the thing itself;
iha tu na vyapadeśamātraṃ bhinnam, śabdasya sarvapuruṣagrahaṇayogyatvāviśeṣeṇāvasthānāt /	while in the case in question, the difference is not merely in name, as the Sound is there as equally perceptible by all men;
tataś ca grahaṇāgrahaṇe na syātām /	whence there could not be perception and non-perception at the same time;
nahi vyapadeśānyathātvamātreṇārthakriyāniyatasvabhāvahānir yuktā / atha pratiniyatapuruṣagrāhya eva tasya svabhāvas tena grahaṇāgrahaṇe puruṣaśaktibhedād aviruddhe iti cen na /	and mere change in name cannot deprive a thing of its innate capacity for effective action. It might be said that the nature of Sound is such that it is perceptible by certain restricted persons only, so that there would be nothing incongruous in its perception and non-perception at the same time, by reason of the capacity of the particular persons concerned.
yena hyekadā na gṛhītaḥ puruṣeṇa, tena na kadācid api gṛhyate /	This cannot be so; if it were so, then if Sound is not perceived by a man at one time, it would never be perceived by him;
na caivam /	but such is not the ease.
tasmān mābhūd ekatvahāniriti / ekaivāvasthā saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛtayor anyatarābhyupagantavyā śabdasya, tataḥ kimityāha ekāvathābhyupetāv ityādi //	Hence, in order to preserve the one-mss of the Sound, only one condition should be accepted either the embellished or the unembellished. Question: What would be the result of this? Answer: ‘So that only one condition, etc. etc.’ (2167)
[p.602 ubhayasaṃskārapakṣe doṣamāha pratyekam ityādi / pratyekābhihitā doṣāḥ syur dvayor api saṃskṛtau /	The objections that have been urged against each of the other two views are applicable to the view that there is embellishment of both.
ato na vyaṇYjakaḥ śabde kathaṇYcid api yujyate //	thus it is not possible in any way that there should be any manifester of the sound.
pratyekaṃ śabdasyendriyasya ca saṃskāre ye 'bhihitā doṣās te dvayor api saṃskāre bhaveyuḥ /	‘To each of the two views’ that there is embellishment of the Sound and there is embellishment of the Sense-organ. The objections that have been urged against these are applicable to the view that there is embellishment of both.
ata ityupasaṃharati // uttaram ityādinā pratividhatte /	‘Thus, etc. etc.’ This sums up the whole criticism (against the Mīmāṃsaka’s view).
uttaraṃ śrotrasaṃskārād bhāṣyakāreṇa varṇitam / tadbhedācchrutibhedaś ca pratiśrotṛvyavasthitaḥ //	“The author of the Bhāṣya has expounded the answer to the above, on the basis of the idea that the embellishment pertains to the auditory organ. The diversity in the hearing by different persons is also due to the diversity of the organ.” (2169)
bhāṣyakāreṇeti /	‘The Author of the Bhāṣya’.
yathoktam ---``yasyāpyabhivyaṇYjanti tasyāpyeṣa na doṣo dūre satyāḥ karṇaśaṣkulyā anupakārakāḥ saṃyogavibhāgāstena dūre yacchrotraṃ tena nopalabhyanta" iti /	This is what has been said by him (in Śabara-Bhāṣya on 1. 13) ‘For one who holds that the Conjunctions and Disjunctions manifest (not produce) the Word, the said incongruity (of the Word uttered in Srughna being heard in Pāṭaliputra) does not arise, because the Conjunctions and Disjunctions operating in one place do not affect the Ear-drum at a distance; so that the Auditory Organ at a distance does not catch the Word-Sound that, is manifested’ (Translation, pp.
tadbhedād iti karṇaśaṣkulīśrotrabhedāt /	‘Due to the diversity’ in the Ear-drum,
śrutibhedaḥ pratītibhedaḥ //	‘Diversity in hearing’ diversity in the cognition (of Sound).
nanu ca katham anyasya saṃskāre 'nyasyābhivyaktir bhavatītyāha yathā ghaṭāder ityādi / yathā ghaṭāder dīpādir abhivyaṇYjaka iṣyate / cakṣuṣo 'nugrahād eva dhvaniḥ syācchrotrasaṃskṛteḥ //	“Just as the lamp is regarded as the manifester of the jar, through the aid that it affords to the eye, so (in the case of the word-sound) the articulation would be the manifester (of the sound) through the impression that it makes upon the auditory organ.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 42]. Question: How can the embellishment of one thing bring about the manifestation of something else?
yathā hi dīpādiścakṣuṣo 'nugraheṇa ghaṭāder abhivyaṇYjako bhavati, tathā dhvanir api śrotrasaṃskṛteḥ śrotrasaṃskaraṇāt, śabdasyābhivyaṇYjako bhaviṣyati //	Answer (by the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2170 above] Just as the Lamp becomes the manifester of the Jar, through the help it accords to the Eye, so the Articulation also, would be the manifester of the Sound through the embellishment of impression upon the Auditory Organ.
naca paryanuyogo 'tra kenākāreṇa saṃskṛtiḥ /	“There should not be any such question as to the form in which the embellishment is made;
utpattāvapi hi śabdasya kāraṇebhyaḥ satyāṃ tulyaḥ paryanuyogas tatrāpi śakyata evaitad uktam kenākāreṇa dhvaninā vāyavīyasaṃyogavibhāgātmakenānyena vā kāraṇena kathaṃ śabdaḥ kriyata iti /	as that question can be similarly raised in the case of the production (of the word, in the ear); as in that case also, the capacity (of the things concerned) is beyond sense-perception.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 43]. Says the Opponent: It has to be explained in what, way the Articulation brings about the embellishment of the Auditory Organ, which is an accomplished entity.
yataḥ śaktis tatrāpyatīndriyā /	Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2171 above]
tatrāpi śabdānām utpattau kriyamāṇāyām śabdakāraṇānāṃ yathotpādakaśaktir atīndriyā tathābhivyaktāvapīti tulyaḥ paryanuyogaḥ // yadyatīndriyā śaktiḥ sā katham anumantavyetyāha nityam ityādi /	‘That question can be, etc. etc.’ The said question can be raised, with equal reason, in regard to the view that ‘there is production of Sound in the Ear’, Under the view that Sound is produced (not manifested) by its causes, the said question could be raised, ‘in what form does the Articulation, which consists in Conjunctions and Disjunctions of Air, or any other cause produce the Sound?’ Because in that case also, i.e. in the case of the production of Sounds being brought about, the capacity of the causes of the Sounds would be beyond the reach of Sense-perception;
[p.603]	and so it is in the case of the view that Sounds are manifested (not produced), So the question can be raised, with equal reason, in regard to both the views.
nityaṃ kāryānumeyā ca śaktiḥ kimanuyujyate / tadbhāvabhāvitāmātraṃ pramāṇaṃ tatra gamyate //	“Why should any question or objection be raised against the capacity of things, which is always inferable from its effects? And the only proof for it lies in the fact that the particular effect appears only when the particular capacity is there”.
utpādakaśaktir vābhisaṃskāraśaktir vā bhavatu, sarvathā yāvatī kācicchaktiḥ sā sarvā sadaiva kāryānumeyā /	Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2172 above] Whether it be the capacity to manifest, or the capacity to embellish in all cases, whatever capacity is there can always be inferred from its effects;
tasmāt sā nānuyogam arhati /	hence no question or objection can be raised against it.
kiṃ tat kāryaṃ yataḥ sā gamyata ity āha tadbhāvetyādi / tadbhāve dhvanibhāve sati, tadbhāvitā śabdagrahaṇasya bhāvitā yā, tadeva tatra śabdavya(Gṇjakaś)ktau pramāṇam /	Question: What is that effect which leads to the inference of the Capacity? Answer: ‘And the only proof, etc. etc.’ ‘Tadhhāve’ when the Articulation is there, then alone is ‘tadbhāvitā’ i.e. the appearance of the effect, in the shape of the cognition of the Sound; this is the only proof for the existence, in the Articulation, of the capacity to manifest the Word-Sound;
śabdagrahaṇakāryeṇa śaktir gamyata iti yāvat /	that is, from the effect, in the shape of the cognition of Sound, there is inference of the said capacity.
(mātra)grahaṇenotpatter nirāsaḥ //	‘Only’ this is meant to preclude the idea of production.
ata ityupasaṃharati / ato 'tīndriyayaivaite śaktyā śaktimatīndriyām / indriyasyādadhānā hi sphuranti vyaktihetavaḥ //	“Thus the conclusion is that it is by means of the imperceptible capacity alone that these (articulations) impart an imperceptible capacity to the sense-organ concerned, and thereby appear as causes of the manifestation (of the word-sound).” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 45].
tasmād ete dhvanayo 'tīndriyayā śaktyā śrotrendriyasya śaktimatīndriyāmutpādayantaḥ sphuranti vyaktihetavaḥ / śabdānām ityapekṣaṇīyam //	From all this it follows that these articulations, by means of their imperceptible Capacity, produce, in the Auditory Organ, an imperceptible Capacity, and appear as the causes of manifestation i.e. ‘of Words and Sounds’, which has to be added.
yeṣāṃ tvaprāptajāto 'yaṃ śabdaḥ śrotreṇa gṛhyate /	“There are some people, according to whom the word-sound is apprehended by the auditory organ, when it is produced but not in actual contact with that organ;
teṣām aprāptitulyatvād dūravyavahitādiṣu // tatra dūrasamīpasthagrahaṇāgrahaṇe same /	for them, the absence of contact being equally present in the case of distant and near sounds, the apprehension and non-apprehension by people far and near would be equally possible;
syātāṃ naca kramo nāpi tīvramandādisambhavaḥ //	and there could be no order of sequence, nor the greater and less intensity (of sounds heard).” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 119-121].
yeṣāṃ bauddhānāṃ śabdo 'prāptajāto gṛhyate śrotreṇa /	According to the Buddhists, when Sound is apprehended by the Auditory Organ, it has been produced and is not in contact with the organ;
aprāptaścāsau jātaścetyaprāptajātaḥ / cakṣuḥśrotramano 'prāptaviṣayam, upāttānupāttamahābhūtahetuḥ śabda iti siddhāntāt /	in the compound ‘aprāptajāta’, ‘aprāpta’, ‘not in contact’, qualifies ‘jāta’, ‘produced because according to their doctrines, the Visual and Auditory Organs are operative without contact, and Sound is produced by the conjunction and disjunction of the Primary Elementary Substance (Air).
teṣāṃ matena śabdānāṃ dūravyavahitasamīpasthānāṃ śrotreṇāprāptes tulyatvād dūrasamīpasthaiḥ puruṣair grahaṇāgrahaṇe tulye syātām, samīpasthasyayādṛśaṃ grahaṇaṃ tādṛśaṃ dūrasthasyāpi syād aviśeṣāt /	In accordance with the view of these people, the ‘non-contact’ with the Auditory Organ would be equally present in the cases of remote, obstructed and approximate Sounds, and their apprehension and non-apprehension by people far and near would be equally possible; that is, the apprehension by the man near the Sound would be exactly like that by the man far off, there being no difference between the two. Nor would there be any apprehension of Sound in succession;
krameṇa ca grahaṇaṃ na syāt, yatpūrvaṃ samīpasthair grahaṇaṃ paścād dūrasthair iti /	in the way that the apprehension by the nearer man comes first and then follows the apprehension by the remoter man.
nāpi tīvramandataratamādiśrutibhedaḥ syāt, yat samīpasthair tīvraḥ śrūyate mando dūrasthair iti /	Nor would there be any such difference in the hearing as that of greater or less intensity, as is found to be the case in actual experience that the Sound heard by the nearer man is more intense than that heard by the remoter man.
evaṃ taratamabhedo 'pi yojyaḥ //	So also with the difference in grades of intensity also.
tasmācchrotriyadṛṣṭyāpi kalpaneyaṃ nirīkṣyatām / prayatnābhihato vāyuḥ koṣṭhyo jātītyasaṃśayaḥ(---) //	Thus, from the point of view of the vedic scholar also, let us examine the matter: it is an undoubted fact that (in speaking) the air within the body, on the impact of the man’s effort, issues forth;
sa saṃyogavibhāgau ca tālvāder anurudhyate /	and in thus issuing forth, it undergoes conjunction and disjunction with the palate and other spots in the mouth;
vegavattvāc ca so 'vaśyaṃ yāvadvegaṃ pratiṣṭhate // tasyātmāvayavānāṃ ca stimitena ca vāyunā / saṃyogā viprayogāś ca jāyante gamanād dhruvam //	and inasmuch as the air issues forth with some velocity, it goes along as long as the initial momentum lasts it is also certain that, in thus issuing forth, the component particles of the alr come into contact with, and become disjoined from, the still air (through which it passes);
karṇavyomani samprāptaḥ śāktiṃ śrotre niyacchati / tadbhāve śabdabodhāc ca saṃskāro 'dṛṣṭa iṣyate // utpattiśaktivat so 'pītyadhikaṃ no na kiṇYcana /	having reached the ākāśa in the auditory organ, this air imparts a certain capacity to that organ and it is only when this is there that there is cognition (hearing) of the sound; from whence it is concluded that there is a certain ‘embellishment’ of the organ, and this is the only imperceptible factor (that is posited).
tathaiva tadviśeṣāpi viśeṣagrahaṇād bhavet //	Similarly peculiar forms would be inferred from particular forms of the cognition.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 121-126].
śrotriyagrahaṇamatārkikatvapratipādanaparam /	Says the Opponent: Even for the Mīmāṃsaka, according to whom the Sound apprehended by the Auditory Organ is one that is in contact with the organ, and is not-produced, why should the said incongruity not arise?
anena ca svapakṣotkarṣaṃ vakroktyā kathayati /	In view of this question, the Mīmāṃsaka proceeds to draw a distinction (between the two cases): [see verses 2176-2180 above]
kāsau kalpanetyāha prayatnābhihata ityādi /	Answer: ‘It is an undoubted fact, etc. etc.’ The effort is the form of the operation of the Palate and other centres of speech;
prayatnas tālvādikaraṇavyāpārastenābhihataḥ preritaḥ koṣṭhabhavo vāyurnābhipradeśādutthita urasi vistīrṇaḥ kaṇṭhe vartito mūrddhānamāhatya vaktre saṇYcarannirgacchati /	on the impact of this effort, there is urged forward, the Air within the body, which issuing out from the nave’, spreads itself out in the regions of the heart, revolves in the throat and strikes the brain, then proceeding through the mouth, it issues out.
etad eva darśayati(000) sa ityādi / sa vāyur niṣkramaṃstālvādeḥ saṃyogavibhāgāvanubhavati /	All this is shown by the words ‘In thus issuing forth, etc. etc.’ When this Air issues out, it undergoes contact and disjunction with the Palate, etc.
gacchaṃś ca na sa yāvadākāśamabhigacchati /	When thus issuing out, it does not go on as far as Ākāśa extends;
kiṃ tarhi yāvad vegam yāvāṃs tasya vegas tadanurūpam eva gacchatīti yāvat /	it goes along as long as the momentum lasts, i.e it moves forward in accordance with the momentum imparted to it;
kutaḥ vegavattvāt /	why? because it issues forth with some velocity;
tasya ca vāyor gacchata ātmīyāvayavānāṃ stimitena sthireṇa vāyunā saṃyogavibhāgāḥ samupajāyante /	when the Air thus goes out, there come about Conjunctions and Disjunctions of the particles of that Air with the still Air the calm, immobile Air.
avaśyaṃ saca karṇarandhraṃ prāpya śrotre śaktimādhatte /	Thus when it reaches the Ear-cavity, it surely imparts a potency to the Auditory Organ.
tadbhāve vāyavīyasaṃyogavibhāgasadbhāve sati, śabdasyāvagamād adṛṣṭaḥ saṃskāraḥ śrotrasyeṣyate /	And when this is there, i.e. when the Conjunctions and Disjunctions of the Air are there, there is cognition of Sound; and it is on this ground that it is held that there is embellishment of the Auditory Organ.
yathā śabdasya śabdāntarair dharnibhir votpattir dṛ(tteradṛ---)ṣṭāpīṣyate bhavadbhi(śśaktī)stathā saṃskāro 'pīti /	You yourself hold that there is production of Sound by other sounds or by articulation, and yet you also posit a potency or capacity; so also is the embellishment held by us.
yathoktaṃ bhāṣye ---``abhighātena preritāvayavaḥ stimitāni vastvantarāṇi prabādhamānāḥ sarvatodikkāḥ saṃyogavibhāgānutpādayanto yāvad vegamabhipratiṣṭhante, te ca vāyor apratyakṣatvāt saṃyogavibhāgā nopalabhyante /	As declared in the Bhāṣya (Śabara on Sū. 13) ‘What happens is that the air-particles disturbed by the sound-provoking stroke, strike against the stagnant air-particles and produce Conjunctions and Disjunctions (i.e. ripples) on all sides, which go on spreading as long as the momentum lasts; the Conjunctions and Disjunctions (Ripples) are not perceived, because the Air (of which they are ripples) is imperceptible;
anuparateṣveva ca teṣu śabda upalabhyate noparateṣvi"ti /	and as for the Sound, it is heard only so long and so far as the ripples do not cease, and after they have ceased, the Sound is not heard’, (Translation, p.
yadyevaṃ na tarhi saṃskārapakṣasyotpattipakṣād viśeṣaḥ kathito bhavatītyāha tathaivetyādi / tadviśeṣaḥ saṃskāraviśeṣaḥ, śabdagrahaṇaviśeṣād upapadyate /	Objection: If that is so, then there is no difference between the view that Sound is produced and the view that it is embellished. Answer: ‘Similarly, etc. etc.’ ‘Peculiar forms’, i.e. peculiarities of embellishment are possible through the peculiarities in the cognition of the Sound.
tena dūrasamīpasthānāṃ grahaṇāgrahaṇe na same bhavataḥ, puruṣabhedena saṃskārasya bhinnatvāt //2176 //2177 //	Hence the apprehension and non-apprehension by remote and proximate persons cannot be similar; as the embellishment would vary with each person. “The interception caused by obstacles like the wall is quite possible in the case of air.
kuḍyādhāvaraṇe katham agrahaṇaṃ śabdasyetyāha kuḍyādītyādi /	Question: Why is there no cognition of Sound when there are obstructions like the intervening wall?
[p.605]	Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verses 2181-2182 above]
tasya ca kramavṛttitvāt kṣayivegitvasampadaḥ / saṃskārakramatīvratvamandatādinimittatā //	Though Bound is not subject to interception, yet, inasmuch as the Air and the Wall are both corporeal substances, they are liable to obstruction and interception;
yadyapi śabdo na pratighātī tathāpi mātariśvano vāyoḥ kuḍyasya ca mūrtatvepratighātitvān na karṇadeśāgamanam iti śrotrasaṃskāro na jāyate, tenāvṛttasyāśravaṇaṃ bhavati /	and hence the Air does not reach the Ear (when there is an intervening wall); and hence there is no embellishment of the organ; this is the reason why there is no hearing of the intercepted Sound. The criticism urged therefore is applicable to those for whom there is perception of Sound without its actually reaching the Ear.
tīvrataramaśrutibhedas tarhi kathaṃ bhavatītyāha śrotradeśābhighāto 'pīti / yujyata iti prakṛtaṃ sarvatra yojanīyam /	To the question How then is there the diversity of greater and less intensity? the answer is ‘The striking against, etc, etc.’ The verb ‘yujyate’, ‘is possible’, has to be construed with all these sentences.
kṣayivegitvasampada iti / kṣayitvasampado vegitvasampado yujyanta iti vibhaktivipariṇāmena sambandhaḥ /	‘Has a waning intensity, etc. etc.’ The construction is The liability to wane and velocity are both possible in Sound. Or the compound may be expounded to mean that ‘the velocity is liable to wane’ (Karmadhāraya);
yadvā kṣayiṇī vegitvasampadyasya vāyor iti bahuvrīhiḥ /	or ‘the Sound has a velocity which is liable to wane’ (Bahuvrīhi).
tataś ca saṃskārakramatīvramandatānimittatā yujyata iti sambandhaḥ /	The construction is that ‘On these grounds the varying grades of intensity become quite explicable’.
saṃskārakramo yujyate tasya vāyoḥ kramavṛttitvāt / tīvratā ca yujyate vegitvasampadā yuktatvāt / mandatāpi ca kṣayitvāt /	The sequence in the embellishment also becomes explicable, because of the sequence in the Air -current; high intensity becomes explicable on the ground of the Air having velocity; and low intensity becomes explicable, as being due to the waving character of the velocity.
ādiśabdena taratamādibhedo yojyaḥ //	The term ‘ādi’ is meant to include other variations in the Sound.
nāvaśyaṃ śrotram ākāśam asmābhiścābhyupeyate /	“We do not necessarily accept the idea of the auditory organ consisting of ākāśa;
nacānavayavaṃ vyoma jainasāṃkhyāniṣedhataḥ //	nor can ākāśa be regarded as being without parts: because such an idea has been negatived by the Jaina and the Sāṃkhya.
tenākāśaikadeśo vā yadvā vastvantaraṃ bhavet /	Consequently the auditory organ may be a part of ākāśa, or it may be a distinct entity by itself;
kāryārthāpattigamyaṃ tacchrotraṃ pratinaraṃ sthitam //	The Answer to this (from the Mīmāṃsaka) is as follows: [see verses 2183-2184 above]
tena tat pakṣabhāvino doṣās tadanaṅgīkārād eva nāpatantītyuktam /	What is meant by this is that the objections urged against that theory are not applicable to the Mīmāṃsaka, who does not accept that theory.
nacānavayavaṃ vyometi / abhyupeyata iti sambandhaḥ /	‘Nor can Ākāśa be regarded as being without parts’ The verb ‘abhyupeyate’ (is accepted) has to be construed here also.
kutaḥ jainasaṅkhyaniṣedhataḥ jainairārhataiḥ sāṅkhaiś ca niravayavasya vyomno niṣiddhatvāt /	Why? ‘Because such an idea has been negatived by the Jaina and the Sāṃkhya’, The Jainas the Ārhatas, as well as the Sāṃkhyas have rejected that idea.
nahi mīmāṃsakaiḥ parasiddhāntaprasiddher na vyavahriyate /	It is not that the Mīmāṃsakas do not make use of the conclusions of other people;
yadeva hi yuktyā samāpatati tadeva tairaṅgīkriyate, anyathā mīmāṃsakatvameva hīyeta /	they accept anything that is found to follow from reason; if they did not do this, they would cease to be ‘Mīmāṃsakas’ (Rationalists).
tataś ca jainasāṅkhyaprasiddhavyomātmakaśrotrāṅgīkaraṇān na doṣaḥ /	Consequently, even if they accepted the Jaina and Sāṃkhya idea of the Auditory Organ consisting of Ākāśa, they would be doing nothing objectionable.
yadvā vastvantaram iti / karṇaśaṣkulīsaṃjṇYakam /	‘Or it may be a distinct entity by itself’, called the ‘Ear-drum’,
kāryārthāpattigamyam iti / śabdagrahaṇānyathānupapattigamyam //	‘Presumption due, etc. etc.’ i.e. based upon the fact that the phenomenon of the hearing of Sound cannot be explained except on the basis of this idea.
athavā anavayavākāśaśrotrapakṣe 'pi na doṣa iti pratipādayann āha yadyapītyādi / [p.606]	Or, even the view that the Auditory Organ consists of the indivisible Ākāśa, is not open to the said objections. This is what is explained in the following: [see verse 2185 next]
yadyapi vyāpi caikaṃ ca tathāpi dhvanisaṃskṛtiḥ / adhiṣṭhāne tu sā yasya sa śabdaṃ pratipadyate //	“Even if the auditory organ (as consisting of the indivisible ākāśa) were all-pervading and one, the embellishment due to articulation could affect only the material substratum of that organ;
śrotram iti śeṣaḥ /	‘Vyāpi’ ‘Ekam’ qualify ‘Śrotram’ (understood).
tathāpi sā dhvanibhiḥ saṃskṛtir yasya puruṣasyādhiṣṭhāne karṇaśaṣkulyāṃ bhavati, sa eva śabdaṃ pratipadyate nānyaḥ /	Even so, that man alone, no other, hears the Sound whose ‘Ear-drum’, as the substratum of the Auditory Organ is affected by the embellishment due to articulation.
anenādhiṣṭhānasaṃskāra evokto na śrotrasya /	What is meant by this is that the embellishment affects the substratum, not the Auditory Organ;
tasya cādhiṣṭhānasya pratipuruṣaṃ bhinnatvān na yathoktadoṣaprasaṅga iti bhāvaḥ //	and as the substratum varies with each person, the objections in question do not apply at all.
śrotrasaṃskāre 'pi na doṣa iti pratipādayati athāpīti / athāpīndriyasaṃskāraḥ so 'pyadhiṣṭhānadeśataḥ / śabdaṃ na śroṣyati śrotraṃ tenāsaṃskṛtaśaṣkuli //	“Even if the embellishment affects the organ itself, as it could affect the organ only through its substratum, that organ of which the ear-drum has not been embellished would not catch the sound.” [Śokavārtika eternality of words, 69-70]. The following Text explains that the said objections do not apply even if the embellishment is regarded as affecting the Auditory Organ itself: [see verse 2186 above]
adhiṣṭhānam karṇaśaṣkulī /	‘Substratum’ the Ear-drum;
tatsaṃskāradvāreṇa śrotrasya saṃskāro na kevalasya / tenāsaṃskṛtādhiṣṭhānatvāc ca vidūrasthānyacittasaptamūrchitānāṃ śrotraṃna śṛṇoti /	it is through this Ear-drum that there is embellishment of the Auditory Organ, not by itself. It is for this reason that in the case of persons at a distance, or with mind preoccupied, or asleep or in a swoon, Sound is not heard, because the substratum of the orgaṇ has not been embellished.
asaṃskṛtā karṇaśaṣkulī yasya tat tathoktam /	The compound ‘asaṃshṛta, etc. etc.’ is to be explained as ‘that organ of which the Ear-drum has not been embellished’,
adhiṣṭhānadeśata iti saptamyarthe tasiḥ //	In the word ‘adhiṣṭhānadeśataḥ’, the ‘tasi’-affix at the end has the sense of the Locative.
aprāptakarṇadeśatvād dhvaner na śrotrasaṃskriyā /	“There is no embellishment of the auditory organ, if and when the articulation does not reach the locus of the organ;
ato 'dhiṣṭhānabhedena saṃskāraniyamaḥ sthitaḥ //	thus the restriction on the embellishment becomes determined on the basis of the diversity in the substratum (or locus) of the organ.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 70-71].

yathā ghaṭāder andhakārāpagame sati puro 'vasthitasyānabhīṣṭasyāpyupalabdhir bhavatyeva yogyadeśāvathānāt //

e.g. when the enveloping darkness is removed, the Jar that is there, even though its perception may not be desired, becomes perceived, because it lies in a perceptible spot.

yaduktam ---``tatra sarvaiḥ pratīyeta śabdaḥ saṃskriyate yadi //" iti, tatra na doṣo yasmād eko 'pi śabdaḥ kiñcit puruṣaṃ pratyasaṃskṛtaḥ kañcitprati saṃskṛtaḥ /

so that only one condition should be admitted, no matter whether it be cognised, or not cognised, by all. [The following might be urged] It has been asserted (in Text 2157) that ‘if Sound were embellished, it would be heard by all’; but this incongruity does not arise, because even a single Sound may be embellished for one man, while not-embellished for another;

yathā ekā strī vyapekṣābhedān mātā ca duhitā cetyāha saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛtatve iti /

just as the same woman, through difference in relationship, may be mother to one and daughter to another person. The answer to this is as follows: [see verse 2167above]

śabdasyaikatve sati saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛtatve dve avasthe niṣparyāyeṇa na prāpnutaḥ, avasthāyā avasthātur abhedāt, avasthātṛsvarūpavadavasthayorapyekatvam eva prāpnoti /

The Sound being one, the two conditions of being ‘embellished’ and ‘not embellished’ cannot belong to it, at the same time; because the condition cannot differ from the conditioned; so that, as the conditioned ‘Sound’ is one only, its condition (embellished or otherwise) must be one only.

yat punar ekā strī mātā cocyate duhitā ceti / tatra śabda eva kevalaṃ bhinno na vastu /

As regards the case of one and the same woman being both Mother and Daughter, there it is the name only that differs, not the thing itself;

iha tu na vyapadeśamātraṃ bhinnam, śabdasya sarvapuruṣagrahaṇayogyatvāviśeṣeṇāvasthānāt /

while in the case in question, the difference is not merely in name, as the Sound is there as equally perceptible by all men;

tataś ca grahaṇāgrahaṇe na syātām /

whence there could not be perception and non-perception at the same time;

nahi vyapadeśānyathātvamātreṇārthakriyāniyatasvabhāvahānir yuktā / atha pratiniyatapuruṣagrāhya eva tasya svabhāvas tena grahaṇāgrahaṇe puruṣaśaktibhedād aviruddhe iti cen na /

and mere change in name cannot deprive a thing of its innate capacity for effective action. It might be said that the nature of Sound is such that it is perceptible by certain restricted persons only, so that there would be nothing incongruous in its perception and non-perception at the same time, by reason of the capacity of the particular persons concerned.

yena hyekadā na gṛhītaḥ puruṣeṇa, tena na kadācid api gṛhyate /

This cannot be so; if it were so, then if Sound is not perceived by a man at one time, it would never be perceived by him;

na caivam /

but such is not the ease.

tasmān mābhūd ekatvahāniriti / ekaivāvasthā saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛtayor anyatarābhyupagantavyā śabdasya, tataḥ kimityāha ekāvathābhyupetāv ityādi //

Hence, in order to preserve the one-mss of the Sound, only one condition should be accepted either the embellished or the unembellished. Question: What would be the result of this? Answer: ‘So that only one condition, etc. etc.’ (2167)

[p.602 ubhayasaṃskārapakṣe doṣamāha pratyekam ityādi / pratyekābhihitā doṣāḥ syur dvayor api saṃskṛtau /

The objections that have been urged against each of the other two views are applicable to the view that there is embellishment of both.

ato na vyaṇYjakaḥ śabde kathaṇYcid api yujyate //

thus it is not possible in any way that there should be any manifester of the sound.

pratyekaṃ śabdasyendriyasya ca saṃskāre ye 'bhihitā doṣās te dvayor api saṃskāre bhaveyuḥ /

‘To each of the two views’ that there is embellishment of the Sound and there is embellishment of the Sense-organ. The objections that have been urged against these are applicable to the view that there is embellishment of both.

ata ityupasaṃharati // uttaram ityādinā pratividhatte /

‘Thus, etc. etc.’ This sums up the whole criticism (against the Mīmāṃsaka’s view).

uttaraṃ śrotrasaṃskārād bhāṣyakāreṇa varṇitam / tadbhedācchrutibhedaś ca pratiśrotṛvyavasthitaḥ //

“The author of the Bhāṣya has expounded the answer to the above, on the basis of the idea that the embellishment pertains to the auditory organ. The diversity in the hearing by different persons is also due to the diversity of the organ.” (2169)

bhāṣyakāreṇeti /

‘The Author of the Bhāṣya’.

yathoktam ---``yasyāpyabhivyaṇYjanti tasyāpyeṣa na doṣo dūre satyāḥ karṇaśaṣkulyā anupakārakāḥ saṃyogavibhāgāstena dūre yacchrotraṃ tena nopalabhyanta" iti /

This is what has been said by him (in Śabara-Bhāṣya on 1. 13) ‘For one who holds that the Conjunctions and Disjunctions manifest (not produce) the Word, the said incongruity (of the Word uttered in Srughna being heard in Pāṭaliputra) does not arise, because the Conjunctions and Disjunctions operating in one place do not affect the Ear-drum at a distance; so that the Auditory Organ at a distance does not catch the Word-Sound that, is manifested’ (Translation, pp.

tadbhedād iti karṇaśaṣkulīśrotrabhedāt /

‘Due to the diversity’ in the Ear-drum,

śrutibhedaḥ pratītibhedaḥ //

‘Diversity in hearing’ diversity in the cognition (of Sound).

nanu ca katham anyasya saṃskāre 'nyasyābhivyaktir bhavatītyāha yathā ghaṭāder ityādi / yathā ghaṭāder dīpādir abhivyaṇYjaka iṣyate / cakṣuṣo 'nugrahād eva dhvaniḥ syācchrotrasaṃskṛteḥ //

“Just as the lamp is regarded as the manifester of the jar, through the aid that it affords to the eye, so (in the case of the word-sound) the articulation would be the manifester (of the sound) through the impression that it makes upon the auditory organ.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 42]. Question: How can the embellishment of one thing bring about the manifestation of something else?

yathā hi dīpādiścakṣuṣo 'nugraheṇa ghaṭāder abhivyaṇYjako bhavati, tathā dhvanir api śrotrasaṃskṛteḥ śrotrasaṃskaraṇāt, śabdasyābhivyaṇYjako bhaviṣyati //

Answer (by the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2170 above] Just as the Lamp becomes the manifester of the Jar, through the help it accords to the Eye, so the Articulation also, would be the manifester of the Sound through the embellishment of impression upon the Auditory Organ.

naca paryanuyogo 'tra kenākāreṇa saṃskṛtiḥ /

“There should not be any such question as to the form in which the embellishment is made;

utpattāvapi hi śabdasya kāraṇebhyaḥ satyāṃ tulyaḥ paryanuyogas tatrāpi śakyata evaitad uktam kenākāreṇa dhvaninā vāyavīyasaṃyogavibhāgātmakenānyena vā kāraṇena kathaṃ śabdaḥ kriyata iti /

as that question can be similarly raised in the case of the production (of the word, in the ear); as in that case also, the capacity (of the things concerned) is beyond sense-perception.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 43]. Says the Opponent: It has to be explained in what, way the Articulation brings about the embellishment of the Auditory Organ, which is an accomplished entity.

yataḥ śaktis tatrāpyatīndriyā /

Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2171 above]

tatrāpi śabdānām utpattau kriyamāṇāyām śabdakāraṇānāṃ yathotpādakaśaktir atīndriyā tathābhivyaktāvapīti tulyaḥ paryanuyogaḥ // yadyatīndriyā śaktiḥ sā katham anumantavyetyāha nityam ityādi /

‘That question can be, etc. etc.’ The said question can be raised, with equal reason, in regard to the view that ‘there is production of Sound in the Ear’, Under the view that Sound is produced (not manifested) by its causes, the said question could be raised, ‘in what form does the Articulation, which consists in Conjunctions and Disjunctions of Air, or any other cause produce the Sound?’ Because in that case also, i.e. in the case of the production of Sounds being brought about, the capacity of the causes of the Sounds would be beyond the reach of Sense-perception;

[p.603]

and so it is in the case of the view that Sounds are manifested (not produced), So the question can be raised, with equal reason, in regard to both the views.

nityaṃ kāryānumeyā ca śaktiḥ kimanuyujyate / tadbhāvabhāvitāmātraṃ pramāṇaṃ tatra gamyate //

“Why should any question or objection be raised against the capacity of things, which is always inferable from its effects? And the only proof for it lies in the fact that the particular effect appears only when the particular capacity is there”.

utpādakaśaktir vābhisaṃskāraśaktir vā bhavatu, sarvathā yāvatī kācicchaktiḥ sā sarvā sadaiva kāryānumeyā /

Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2172 above] Whether it be the capacity to manifest, or the capacity to embellish in all cases, whatever capacity is there can always be inferred from its effects;

tasmāt sā nānuyogam arhati /

hence no question or objection can be raised against it.

kiṃ tat kāryaṃ yataḥ sā gamyata ity āha tadbhāvetyādi / tadbhāve dhvanibhāve sati, tadbhāvitā śabdagrahaṇasya bhāvitā yā, tadeva tatra śabdavya(Gṇjakaś)ktau pramāṇam /

Question: What is that effect which leads to the inference of the Capacity? Answer: ‘And the only proof, etc. etc.’ ‘Tadhhāve’ when the Articulation is there, then alone is ‘tadbhāvitā’ i.e. the appearance of the effect, in the shape of the cognition of the Sound; this is the only proof for the existence, in the Articulation, of the capacity to manifest the Word-Sound;

śabdagrahaṇakāryeṇa śaktir gamyata iti yāvat /

that is, from the effect, in the shape of the cognition of Sound, there is inference of the said capacity.

(mātra)grahaṇenotpatter nirāsaḥ //

‘Only’ this is meant to preclude the idea of production.

ata ityupasaṃharati / ato 'tīndriyayaivaite śaktyā śaktimatīndriyām / indriyasyādadhānā hi sphuranti vyaktihetavaḥ //

“Thus the conclusion is that it is by means of the imperceptible capacity alone that these (articulations) impart an imperceptible capacity to the sense-organ concerned, and thereby appear as causes of the manifestation (of the word-sound).” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 45].

tasmād ete dhvanayo 'tīndriyayā śaktyā śrotrendriyasya śaktimatīndriyāmutpādayantaḥ sphuranti vyaktihetavaḥ / śabdānām ityapekṣaṇīyam //

From all this it follows that these articulations, by means of their imperceptible Capacity, produce, in the Auditory Organ, an imperceptible Capacity, and appear as the causes of manifestation i.e. ‘of Words and Sounds’, which has to be added.

yeṣāṃ tvaprāptajāto 'yaṃ śabdaḥ śrotreṇa gṛhyate /

“There are some people, according to whom the word-sound is apprehended by the auditory organ, when it is produced but not in actual contact with that organ;

teṣām aprāptitulyatvād dūravyavahitādiṣu // tatra dūrasamīpasthagrahaṇāgrahaṇe same /

for them, the absence of contact being equally present in the case of distant and near sounds, the apprehension and non-apprehension by people far and near would be equally possible;

syātāṃ naca kramo nāpi tīvramandādisambhavaḥ //

and there could be no order of sequence, nor the greater and less intensity (of sounds heard).” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 119-121].

yeṣāṃ bauddhānāṃ śabdo 'prāptajāto gṛhyate śrotreṇa /

According to the Buddhists, when Sound is apprehended by the Auditory Organ, it has been produced and is not in contact with the organ;

aprāptaścāsau jātaścetyaprāptajātaḥ / cakṣuḥśrotramano 'prāptaviṣayam, upāttānupāttamahābhūtahetuḥ śabda iti siddhāntāt /

in the compound ‘aprāptajāta’, ‘aprāpta’, ‘not in contact’, qualifies ‘jāta’, ‘produced because according to their doctrines, the Visual and Auditory Organs are operative without contact, and Sound is produced by the conjunction and disjunction of the Primary Elementary Substance (Air).

teṣāṃ matena śabdānāṃ dūravyavahitasamīpasthānāṃ śrotreṇāprāptes tulyatvād dūrasamīpasthaiḥ puruṣair grahaṇāgrahaṇe tulye syātām, samīpasthasyayādṛśaṃ grahaṇaṃ tādṛśaṃ dūrasthasyāpi syād aviśeṣāt /

In accordance with the view of these people, the ‘non-contact’ with the Auditory Organ would be equally present in the cases of remote, obstructed and approximate Sounds, and their apprehension and non-apprehension by people far and near would be equally possible; that is, the apprehension by the man near the Sound would be exactly like that by the man far off, there being no difference between the two. Nor would there be any apprehension of Sound in succession;

krameṇa ca grahaṇaṃ na syāt, yatpūrvaṃ samīpasthair grahaṇaṃ paścād dūrasthair iti /

in the way that the apprehension by the nearer man comes first and then follows the apprehension by the remoter man.

nāpi tīvramandataratamādiśrutibhedaḥ syāt, yat samīpasthair tīvraḥ śrūyate mando dūrasthair iti /

Nor would there be any such difference in the hearing as that of greater or less intensity, as is found to be the case in actual experience that the Sound heard by the nearer man is more intense than that heard by the remoter man.

evaṃ taratamabhedo 'pi yojyaḥ //

So also with the difference in grades of intensity also.

tasmācchrotriyadṛṣṭyāpi kalpaneyaṃ nirīkṣyatām / prayatnābhihato vāyuḥ koṣṭhyo jātītyasaṃśayaḥ(---) //

Thus, from the point of view of the vedic scholar also, let us examine the matter: it is an undoubted fact that (in speaking) the air within the body, on the impact of the man’s effort, issues forth;

sa saṃyogavibhāgau ca tālvāder anurudhyate /

and in thus issuing forth, it undergoes conjunction and disjunction with the palate and other spots in the mouth;

vegavattvāc ca so 'vaśyaṃ yāvadvegaṃ pratiṣṭhate // tasyātmāvayavānāṃ ca stimitena ca vāyunā / saṃyogā viprayogāś ca jāyante gamanād dhruvam //

and inasmuch as the air issues forth with some velocity, it goes along as long as the initial momentum lasts it is also certain that, in thus issuing forth, the component particles of the alr come into contact with, and become disjoined from, the still air (through which it passes);

karṇavyomani samprāptaḥ śāktiṃ śrotre niyacchati / tadbhāve śabdabodhāc ca saṃskāro 'dṛṣṭa iṣyate // utpattiśaktivat so 'pītyadhikaṃ no na kiṇYcana /

having reached the ākāśa in the auditory organ, this air imparts a certain capacity to that organ and it is only when this is there that there is cognition (hearing) of the sound; from whence it is concluded that there is a certain ‘embellishment’ of the organ, and this is the only imperceptible factor (that is posited).

tathaiva tadviśeṣāpi viśeṣagrahaṇād bhavet //

Similarly peculiar forms would be inferred from particular forms of the cognition.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 121-126].

śrotriyagrahaṇamatārkikatvapratipādanaparam /

Says the Opponent: Even for the Mīmāṃsaka, according to whom the Sound apprehended by the Auditory Organ is one that is in contact with the organ, and is not-produced, why should the said incongruity not arise?

anena ca svapakṣotkarṣaṃ vakroktyā kathayati /

In view of this question, the Mīmāṃsaka proceeds to draw a distinction (between the two cases): [see verses 2176-2180 above]

kāsau kalpanetyāha prayatnābhihata ityādi /

Answer: ‘It is an undoubted fact, etc. etc.’ The effort is the form of the operation of the Palate and other centres of speech;

prayatnas tālvādikaraṇavyāpārastenābhihataḥ preritaḥ koṣṭhabhavo vāyurnābhipradeśādutthita urasi vistīrṇaḥ kaṇṭhe vartito mūrddhānamāhatya vaktre saṇYcarannirgacchati /

on the impact of this effort, there is urged forward, the Air within the body, which issuing out from the nave’, spreads itself out in the regions of the heart, revolves in the throat and strikes the brain, then proceeding through the mouth, it issues out.

etad eva darśayati(000) sa ityādi / sa vāyur niṣkramaṃstālvādeḥ saṃyogavibhāgāvanubhavati /

All this is shown by the words ‘In thus issuing forth, etc. etc.’ When this Air issues out, it undergoes contact and disjunction with the Palate, etc.

gacchaṃś ca na sa yāvadākāśamabhigacchati /

When thus issuing out, it does not go on as far as Ākāśa extends;

kiṃ tarhi yāvad vegam yāvāṃs tasya vegas tadanurūpam eva gacchatīti yāvat /

it goes along as long as the momentum lasts, i.e it moves forward in accordance with the momentum imparted to it;

kutaḥ vegavattvāt /

why? because it issues forth with some velocity;

tasya ca vāyor gacchata ātmīyāvayavānāṃ stimitena sthireṇa vāyunā saṃyogavibhāgāḥ samupajāyante /

when the Air thus goes out, there come about Conjunctions and Disjunctions of the particles of that Air with the still Air the calm, immobile Air.

avaśyaṃ saca karṇarandhraṃ prāpya śrotre śaktimādhatte /

Thus when it reaches the Ear-cavity, it surely imparts a potency to the Auditory Organ.

tadbhāve vāyavīyasaṃyogavibhāgasadbhāve sati, śabdasyāvagamād adṛṣṭaḥ saṃskāraḥ śrotrasyeṣyate /

And when this is there, i.e. when the Conjunctions and Disjunctions of the Air are there, there is cognition of Sound; and it is on this ground that it is held that there is embellishment of the Auditory Organ.

yathā śabdasya śabdāntarair dharnibhir votpattir dṛ(tteradṛ---)ṣṭāpīṣyate bhavadbhi(śśaktī)stathā saṃskāro 'pīti /

You yourself hold that there is production of Sound by other sounds or by articulation, and yet you also posit a potency or capacity; so also is the embellishment held by us.

yathoktaṃ bhāṣye ---``abhighātena preritāvayavaḥ stimitāni vastvantarāṇi prabādhamānāḥ sarvatodikkāḥ saṃyogavibhāgānutpādayanto yāvad vegamabhipratiṣṭhante, te ca vāyor apratyakṣatvāt saṃyogavibhāgā nopalabhyante /

As declared in the Bhāṣya (Śabara on Sū. 13) ‘What happens is that the air-particles disturbed by the sound-provoking stroke, strike against the stagnant air-particles and produce Conjunctions and Disjunctions (i.e. ripples) on all sides, which go on spreading as long as the momentum lasts; the Conjunctions and Disjunctions (Ripples) are not perceived, because the Air (of which they are ripples) is imperceptible;

anuparateṣveva ca teṣu śabda upalabhyate noparateṣvi"ti /

and as for the Sound, it is heard only so long and so far as the ripples do not cease, and after they have ceased, the Sound is not heard’, (Translation, p.

yadyevaṃ na tarhi saṃskārapakṣasyotpattipakṣād viśeṣaḥ kathito bhavatītyāha tathaivetyādi / tadviśeṣaḥ saṃskāraviśeṣaḥ, śabdagrahaṇaviśeṣād upapadyate /

Objection: If that is so, then there is no difference between the view that Sound is produced and the view that it is embellished. Answer: ‘Similarly, etc. etc.’ ‘Peculiar forms’, i.e. peculiarities of embellishment are possible through the peculiarities in the cognition of the Sound.

tena dūrasamīpasthānāṃ grahaṇāgrahaṇe na same bhavataḥ, puruṣabhedena saṃskārasya bhinnatvāt //2176 //2177 //

Hence the apprehension and non-apprehension by remote and proximate persons cannot be similar; as the embellishment would vary with each person. “The interception caused by obstacles like the wall is quite possible in the case of air.

kuḍyādhāvaraṇe katham agrahaṇaṃ śabdasyetyāha kuḍyādītyādi /

Question: Why is there no cognition of Sound when there are obstructions like the intervening wall?

[p.605]

Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verses 2181-2182 above]

tasya ca kramavṛttitvāt kṣayivegitvasampadaḥ / saṃskārakramatīvratvamandatādinimittatā //

Though Bound is not subject to interception, yet, inasmuch as the Air and the Wall are both corporeal substances, they are liable to obstruction and interception;

yadyapi śabdo na pratighātī tathāpi mātariśvano vāyoḥ kuḍyasya ca mūrtatvepratighātitvān na karṇadeśāgamanam iti śrotrasaṃskāro na jāyate, tenāvṛttasyāśravaṇaṃ bhavati /

and hence the Air does not reach the Ear (when there is an intervening wall); and hence there is no embellishment of the organ; this is the reason why there is no hearing of the intercepted Sound. The criticism urged therefore is applicable to those for whom there is perception of Sound without its actually reaching the Ear.

tīvrataramaśrutibhedas tarhi kathaṃ bhavatītyāha śrotradeśābhighāto 'pīti / yujyata iti prakṛtaṃ sarvatra yojanīyam /

To the question How then is there the diversity of greater and less intensity? the answer is ‘The striking against, etc, etc.’ The verb ‘yujyate’, ‘is possible’, has to be construed with all these sentences.

kṣayivegitvasampada iti / kṣayitvasampado vegitvasampado yujyanta iti vibhaktivipariṇāmena sambandhaḥ /

‘Has a waning intensity, etc. etc.’ The construction is The liability to wane and velocity are both possible in Sound. Or the compound may be expounded to mean that ‘the velocity is liable to wane’ (Karmadhāraya);

yadvā kṣayiṇī vegitvasampadyasya vāyor iti bahuvrīhiḥ /

or ‘the Sound has a velocity which is liable to wane’ (Bahuvrīhi).

tataś ca saṃskārakramatīvramandatānimittatā yujyata iti sambandhaḥ /

The construction is that ‘On these grounds the varying grades of intensity become quite explicable’.

saṃskārakramo yujyate tasya vāyoḥ kramavṛttitvāt / tīvratā ca yujyate vegitvasampadā yuktatvāt / mandatāpi ca kṣayitvāt /

The sequence in the embellishment also becomes explicable, because of the sequence in the Air -current; high intensity becomes explicable on the ground of the Air having velocity; and low intensity becomes explicable, as being due to the waving character of the velocity.

ādiśabdena taratamādibhedo yojyaḥ //

The term ‘ādi’ is meant to include other variations in the Sound.

nāvaśyaṃ śrotram ākāśam asmābhiścābhyupeyate /

“We do not necessarily accept the idea of the auditory organ consisting of ākāśa;

nacānavayavaṃ vyoma jainasāṃkhyāniṣedhataḥ //

nor can ākāśa be regarded as being without parts: because such an idea has been negatived by the Jaina and the Sāṃkhya.

tenākāśaikadeśo vā yadvā vastvantaraṃ bhavet /

Consequently the auditory organ may be a part of ākāśa, or it may be a distinct entity by itself;

kāryārthāpattigamyaṃ tacchrotraṃ pratinaraṃ sthitam //

The Answer to this (from the Mīmāṃsaka) is as follows: [see verses 2183-2184 above]

tena tat pakṣabhāvino doṣās tadanaṅgīkārād eva nāpatantītyuktam /

What is meant by this is that the objections urged against that theory are not applicable to the Mīmāṃsaka, who does not accept that theory.

nacānavayavaṃ vyometi / abhyupeyata iti sambandhaḥ /

‘Nor can Ākāśa be regarded as being without parts’ The verb ‘abhyupeyate’ (is accepted) has to be construed here also.

kutaḥ jainasaṅkhyaniṣedhataḥ jainairārhataiḥ sāṅkhaiś ca niravayavasya vyomno niṣiddhatvāt /

Why? ‘Because such an idea has been negatived by the Jaina and the Sāṃkhya’, The Jainas the Ārhatas, as well as the Sāṃkhyas have rejected that idea.

nahi mīmāṃsakaiḥ parasiddhāntaprasiddher na vyavahriyate /

It is not that the Mīmāṃsakas do not make use of the conclusions of other people;

yadeva hi yuktyā samāpatati tadeva tairaṅgīkriyate, anyathā mīmāṃsakatvameva hīyeta /

they accept anything that is found to follow from reason; if they did not do this, they would cease to be ‘Mīmāṃsakas’ (Rationalists).

tataś ca jainasāṅkhyaprasiddhavyomātmakaśrotrāṅgīkaraṇān na doṣaḥ /

Consequently, even if they accepted the Jaina and Sāṃkhya idea of the Auditory Organ consisting of Ākāśa, they would be doing nothing objectionable.

yadvā vastvantaram iti / karṇaśaṣkulīsaṃjṇYakam /

‘Or it may be a distinct entity by itself’, called the ‘Ear-drum’,

kāryārthāpattigamyam iti / śabdagrahaṇānyathānupapattigamyam //

‘Presumption due, etc. etc.’ i.e. based upon the fact that the phenomenon of the hearing of Sound cannot be explained except on the basis of this idea.

athavā anavayavākāśaśrotrapakṣe 'pi na doṣa iti pratipādayann āha yadyapītyādi / [p.606]

Or, even the view that the Auditory Organ consists of the indivisible Ākāśa, is not open to the said objections. This is what is explained in the following: [see verse 2185 next]

yadyapi vyāpi caikaṃ ca tathāpi dhvanisaṃskṛtiḥ / adhiṣṭhāne tu sā yasya sa śabdaṃ pratipadyate //

“Even if the auditory organ (as consisting of the indivisible ākāśa) were all-pervading and one, the embellishment due to articulation could affect only the material substratum of that organ;

śrotram iti śeṣaḥ /

‘Vyāpi’ ‘Ekam’ qualify ‘Śrotram’ (understood).

tathāpi sā dhvanibhiḥ saṃskṛtir yasya puruṣasyādhiṣṭhāne karṇaśaṣkulyāṃ bhavati, sa eva śabdaṃ pratipadyate nānyaḥ /

Even so, that man alone, no other, hears the Sound whose ‘Ear-drum’, as the substratum of the Auditory Organ is affected by the embellishment due to articulation.

anenādhiṣṭhānasaṃskāra evokto na śrotrasya /

What is meant by this is that the embellishment affects the substratum, not the Auditory Organ;

tasya cādhiṣṭhānasya pratipuruṣaṃ bhinnatvān na yathoktadoṣaprasaṅga iti bhāvaḥ //

and as the substratum varies with each person, the objections in question do not apply at all.

śrotrasaṃskāre 'pi na doṣa iti pratipādayati athāpīti / athāpīndriyasaṃskāraḥ so 'pyadhiṣṭhānadeśataḥ / śabdaṃ na śroṣyati śrotraṃ tenāsaṃskṛtaśaṣkuli //

“Even if the embellishment affects the organ itself, as it could affect the organ only through its substratum, that organ of which the ear-drum has not been embellished would not catch the sound.” [Śokavārtika eternality of words, 69-70]. The following Text explains that the said objections do not apply even if the embellishment is regarded as affecting the Auditory Organ itself: [see verse 2186 above]

adhiṣṭhānam karṇaśaṣkulī /

‘Substratum’ the Ear-drum;

tatsaṃskāradvāreṇa śrotrasya saṃskāro na kevalasya / tenāsaṃskṛtādhiṣṭhānatvāc ca vidūrasthānyacittasaptamūrchitānāṃ śrotraṃna śṛṇoti /

it is through this Ear-drum that there is embellishment of the Auditory Organ, not by itself. It is for this reason that in the case of persons at a distance, or with mind preoccupied, or asleep or in a swoon, Sound is not heard, because the substratum of the orgaṇ has not been embellished.

asaṃskṛtā karṇaśaṣkulī yasya tat tathoktam /

The compound ‘asaṃshṛta, etc. etc.’ is to be explained as ‘that organ of which the Ear-drum has not been embellished’,

adhiṣṭhānadeśata iti saptamyarthe tasiḥ //

In the word ‘adhiṣṭhānadeśataḥ’, the ‘tasi’-affix at the end has the sense of the Locative.

aprāptakarṇadeśatvād dhvaner na śrotrasaṃskriyā /

“There is no embellishment of the auditory organ, if and when the articulation does not reach the locus of the organ;

ato 'dhiṣṭhānabhedena saṃskāraniyamaḥ sthitaḥ //

thus the restriction on the embellishment becomes determined on the basis of the diversity in the substratum (or locus) of the organ.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 70-71].