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

sanskrit stringlengths 4 615	english stringlengths 2 1.3k
yadyapyadhiṣṭhānasaṃskārakāriṇo nādās taddeśendriyasaṃskārakā vā / tathāpi prāptā eva santaḥ saṃskārabhāji padārthe saṃskāraṃ kurvanti nāprāptā ityato na sarvapuruṣādhiṣṭhānādisaṃskāraḥ /	Even if Articulations tend to embellish the substratum, or the organ localised in that substratum, in either case, it is only when they actually get at the object to be embellished that they produce the embellishment; not when they do not get at it. Hence the embellishment cannot affect the substratum of the organs of all persons.
śrotragrahaṇam upalakṣaṇam /	The mention of the ‘Auditory Organ’ in the Text is only by way of illustration;
adhiṣṭhānasaṃskāro 'pi na bhavatyeva /	for the matter of that there is no embellishment of the substratum also.
kvacit aprāptakarṇadeśādveti pāṭhaḥ /	In some places, the reading is ‘aprāptaikarṇadeśādvā’.
tatra pūrvamadhiṣṭhānasaṃskāramukhena śrotrasaṃskāramāśritya parihāra uktaḥ /	Under that reading, the meaning would be that the answer given before was based upon the idea of the embellishment affecting the Organ through its substratum;
sāmprataṃ mābhūd adhiṣṭhānasaṃskāradvāreṇa śrotrasaṃskāras tathāpyadoṣoyataḥ prāptakarṇaśaṣkulīmūlā eva vāyavaḥ śrotrasaṃskārāyālam nāprāptāityataḥ pakṣāntaramuktam /	while the answer provided under the clause in question is that even when there is no embellishment of the Organ through the embellishment of its substratum, there can be no objection to the view put forward; because only those air-particles are fit for bringing about the embellishment which have actually reached the base of the Ear-drum, not those that have not got at it;
ata ityupasaṃhāraḥ //	‘Thus, etc.’ This sums up the explanation.
nanvityādinā pakṣatraye 'pyanantarodita parasya codyamāśaṅkate /	The following text sets forth an objection raised by the Opponent against all the three alternative explanations detailed above: [see verse 2188 next]
nanvekasminnadhiṣṭhāne labdhasaṃskāramindriyam / bodhakaṃ sarvadeheṣu syād ekendriyavādinaḥ // [p.607] ekasya śrotrasya saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛtaparasparaviruddhadharmadvayāyogād ekatra saṃskārāt sarvadeheṣvabhinnatvāt saṃskṛtam eveti badhirāder api bodhakaṃ prāpnoti śrotramekendriyavādinaḥ /	“The opponent may argue as follows ‘Having become embellished in one substratum, the auditory organ should bring about the cognition of the word-sound in all bodies, according to one who holds the view that the auditory organ is one only (for all)’.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 71-73]. The Auditory Organ, being one only, it cannot have the two mutually contradictory characters of being embellished and being not-embellished; hence when there would be embellishment in one, the organ being the same in all bodies, it would become embellished in all bodies;
tataś ca bādhiryādivyavasthānaṃ na syāt //	And in that case, there could be no deafness at all.
puṃsām ityādinā pratividhatte / puṃsāṃ dehapradeśeṣu vijṇYānotpattir iṣyate /	The answer to the above objection (provided by the Mīmāṃsaka) is as follows: [see verse 2189 next] “The appearance of the cognition (of sound) is held to take place in the bodies of persons;
tena pradhānavaideśyād viguṇā śrotrasaṃskṛtiḥ //	consequently, by reason of the principal factor (bodies) occupying different places, the embellishment of the auditory organ is inefficient to that extent.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 72-73].
puṃsāmātmanāṃ sarvagatatve 'pi śarīreṣvapi dharmādharmaparigṛhīteṣu vijṇYānotpattir mīmāṃsakādibhir iṣyate /	Though ‘Persons’ in the shape of Souls are all-pervading, yet the view of the Mīmāṃsakas is that Cognitions appear only in the bodies that are adopted by the Souls by virtue of their merit and demerit.
tena pradhānasya dehasya vaideśyāt bhinnadeśatvāt / śrotrasyaivaṃ sarvagatasyāpi saṃskṛtir viguṇā tena yathoktadoṣānavasaraḥ /	Hence as this principal factor, in the shape of the bodies, would be occupying different points in space, the embellishment in question, of the Auditory Organ, even though the Organ is all-pervading remains inefficient (in the bringing about of the Cognition of Sound in all persons);
kvacit sātra saṃskṛtir iti pāṭhaḥ /	In some manuscripts the reading is ‘sātra saṃskṛtiḥ’;
tatra sā saṃskṛtiḥ śrotrasyeti sambandhaḥ //	in which case, the construction would be ‘sā saṃskṛtiḥ śrotrasya’, ‘that embellishment of the Auditory Organ’, (2189)
nanu ca sarvagatatvād ātmanaḥ sarvatra grahaṇaprasaṅgaḥ śabdasyānivārita evetyāha niṣpradeśo 'pi ceti / niṣpradeśo 'pi cātmā naḥ kārtsnyena ca vidannapi /	“Even though, according to us, the soul is without parts and is conscious of all things everywhere, yet it actually apprehends the thing in the body only; and there can be nothing wrong in this explanation. [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 73-74.] On the same grounds does deafness also become limited in scope;
śarīra eva gṛhṇātītyevamuktir na duṣyati // bādhiryādivyavasthānam etenaiva ca hetunā /	it does not form part of the experience of another soul, because it is influenced by merit and demerit (which varies with different souls).
tadevābhogyamanyasya dharmādharmāvaśīkṛtam // yathā tatra bhavanneva svāmitvād avaropitaḥ / na bhogaṃ labhate tadvad badhiro 'nyatra śṛṇvati //	Just as when the village-lord has been removed from the lordship, though continuing to live in the village, does not enjoy the privileges of the lordship, so the soul of the deaf man deprived of the auditory organ in the body, though continuing to dwell in the body, does not enjoy the experience (of hearing sounds), which other men are hearing.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 76-78].
etad utkaṃ bhavati /	What is meant is as follows:
yadyapyevam, tathāpi dharmādivaśīkṛtaśarīrāvadhikamevātmanaḥ śābdagrahaṇamato na doṣaḥ /	Though it is as stated, yet the actual cognition of Sound by the Soul appears only within the limits of the body with which it has been equipped by reason of its Merit and Demerit; hence the objection urged is not applicable.
kathaṃ punar abhinnasyātmanaḥ śrotrasya grahaṇāgrahaṇasaṃskārāsaṃskāravibhāga iti cet na /	Question: The Soul being the same, how can there be such differentiation as cognition and non-cognition and embellishment and non-embellishment of the Auditory Organ? Answer.
yathā"kāśasyānavayavasyāpi saṃyogipadārthabhedād ghaṭākāśaṃ piṭharākāśam iti bhedo bhavati tathehāpi bhaviṣyati /	Though Ākāśa is without parts yet, on account of the diversity of the objects with which it comes into contact, it becomes subject to distinctions as ‘ākāśa in the Jar’, ‘ākāśa in the Pot’ and so forth; the same would be the case in the matter under consideration also.
ata eva ca vyāpiniravayavasya śrotrasya saṃsargibhedād badhiryādi vyavasthitir iti darśayati / (bādhiryādīti)/	It is for this same reason that, though the Auditory Organ (as Ākāśa) is all-pervading and without parts, yet there are restrictions in the matter of Deafness, etc. on account of the diversity among objects with which the organ comes into contact.
eteneti / saṃyogibhedena hetunā /	This is what is meant by the words ‘On the same grounds, etc. etc.;’ the ‘grounds’ consist in the diversity among objects with which it comes into contact.
yadi nāma saṃyogino bhinnas tathāpi kimiti kaścid eva badhiro bhavatītyāha ---tadevābhogyam iti / tadeva śrotramanyasya puruṣasya na bhogyaṃ bhavati, kutaḥ ---, /	Question: If the objects with which the Organ comes into contact are diverse, even so, why is it that only a certain person becomes deaf? Answer: ‘It does not form part of the experience, etc. etc.’ That same defective Auditory Organ does not form part of the experience of another person;
dharmādharmābhyām avaśīkṛtatvāt /	why? because it is influenced by Merit and Demerit.
etad eva dṛṣṭānte sphuṭayann āha yathā tatretyādi /	This same idea is further clarified by means of an example.
yathā kaścid grāmādeḥ svāmī tatra grāmādau bhavanneva vidyamāna [p.608] eva rājṇYā svāmitvādavaropitastasminneva grāme bhogaṃ na labhate tadvad badhiro 'nyatrānyasmin puruṣe śṛṇvatyapi sati na śṛṇoti //2190 //2191 //2192 //	‘Just as, when the village-lord, etc. etc.’ The Lord of a certain village, even though continuing to live in the village, if he is removed by the King from the Lordship, does not enjoy the same privileges in the same village; in the same manner, the deaf man does not hear the Sound, even though another man hears it. “As a matter of fact, the auditory organ, the sound and its substratum have themselves no parts, and they do not exist at any one place;
nanu ca śrotraśabdākāśānāṃ trayāṇām api niravayavatvād vibhutvācca(na)pradeśavṛttir asti /	Says the Opponent All the three factors the Auditory Organ, the Sound and Ākāśa being without parts and all-pervading, no partial existence is possible for any of them;
tat katham ekadeśavṛttitvaniyatagrahaṇāgrahaṇādivibhāgo labhyata ity āha śrotraśabdāśrayāṇām ityādi /	then how do you get at the distinction into ‘hearing’ and ‘non-hearing’ determined by such partial existence? Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2193 above]
śrotraśabdāśrayāṇāṃ ca na nāmāvayavāḥ svayam /	The Auditory Organ, the Sound, and the substratum of the Sound i.e. Ākāśa, these themselves have no parts;
nacaikadeśavṛttitvaṃ tathāpyetan na duṣyati //	yet such parts are attributed to them figuratively through the diversity among objects with which they come into contact;
na nāmāvayavāḥ svayam iti /	this is what is meant by the qualifying term ‘themselves
pradeśavṛttitvaniyatagrahaṇādikam //	‘Even so, etc. etc.’ ‘our view’, regarding the partial existence, and restricted apprehension of sound and so forth.
katham ity āha vyaṇYjakānām ityādi /	Question: How so? Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2194 next]
vyañjakānāṃ hi vāyūnāṃ bhinnāvayavadeśatā /	“The (vibrating) air-particles, which are the manifesters of the word-sound, have their different parts occupying different points in space;
jātibhedaś ca tenaiva saṃskāro vyavatiṣṭhate //	and it is through this that the embellishment becomes regulated.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 79-80].
tadbhāvo bhinnāvayavadeśatā /	They have different parts occupying different points in space;
jātibhedaśceti / bhinnatātvādikāraṇasāmagrībhedāt //	and there are different kinds of them also, due to the difference among the contributory causes in the form of such diverse things as the Palate and the rest.
nanu coktaṃ sakṛcca saṃskṛtaṃ śrotraṃ sarvaśabdān prabodhayed ityatrottaram āha anyārthaṃ prerita ityādi /	Says the Opponent It has been already pointed out that, ‘on being embellished once, the Auditory Organ should bring about the cognition of all Sounds’ (under Text 2164). The answer to this (from the Mīmāṃsaka) is as follows: [see verse 2195 next]
anyārthaṃ prerito vāyur yathā nānyaṃ karoti saḥ / tathānyavarṇasaṃskāraśakto nānyaṃ kariṣyati //	“Just as the air-vibration put forth for the purpose of one does not bring about another, in the same manner, the air-vibration, capable of bringing about the embellishment for the apprehension of one letter will not bring about another.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 80-81].
anyārtham iti / anyavarṇaniṣpattyartham /	‘For the purpose of one’ for the producing of another Letter.
anyavarṇapratītyarthaḥ saṃskāro yaḥ śrotrasya so 'nyāvarṇasaṃksāraśabdenoktaḥ /	‘Capable of bringing about, etc, etc.’ that embellishment of the Auditory Organ which brings about the hearing of the Letter, is what is spoken of bore by the term ‘anyavarṇa-saṃskāra’;
natu varṇasaṃskāra eva śrotrasaṃskārasya prakṛtatvāt /	and it is not the embellishment of the Letter itself that is meant; that it is so follows from the fact that it is the embellishment of the Auditory Organ that forms the subject-matter of the present discussion.
nānyaṃ kariṣyatīti /	‘Will not bring about another’;
nānyaṃ varṇaṃ śrotrasaṃskāradvāreṇa saṃskariṣyatītyarthaḥ //	i.e. will not embellish another Letter through the embellishment of the Auditory Organ.
atha vāyūnām eva kasmād eṣa pratiniyama ity āha anyair ityādi /	Question: Why should there be the restriction in the case of the Air-vibrations only? Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2196 next]
anyais tālvādisaṃyogair varṇo nānyo yathaiva ca /	“One set of contacts with the palate, etc. serves to bring about only one letter-sound, not another;
tathā dhvanyantarakṣepo na dhvanyantarasāribhiḥ //	in the same manner the contacts bringing about one articulation do not serve to bring about any other articulation.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 81-82].
tālvādisaṃyogabhedād vyañjakā vāyavo dhvanayo bhinnā ityabhiprāyaḥ /	What is in meant is that there are different articulations, in the shape of Air-vibrations which serve to manifest Sounds;
kriyate ityadhyāhāraḥ /	‘Bringing about of other articulations’ i.e. the putting forth of them.
dhvanyantarasāribhis tālvādisaṃyogair iti sāmānādhikaraṇyam //	‘Serving to bring about one articulation’ is to be construed with ‘the contacts of the Palate, etc.'’ (2196)
tasmād ityupasaṃharati	The argument is summed up in the following [see verse 2197 next]
tasmād utpattyabhivyaktyoḥ kāryārthāpattitaḥ samaḥ / sāmarthyabhedaḥ sarvatra syāt prayatnavivakṣayoḥ //	“For these reasons in the production and manifestation (of word-sounds), the diversity of capacity is equally present, in the effort and the desire to speak, such diversity being presumed on the basis of certain effects (facts) which cannot be otherwise explained.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 82-83].
utpattyabhivyaktyor iti saptamyantam / śabdasyotpattāvabhivyaktau ca prayatnasya vivakṣāyāś ca tulyaḥ sāmarthyabhedaḥ /	The word ‘utpattyabhivyaktyoḥ’ has the Locative ending, the meaning being ‘in the production and in the manifestation of the Word-Sound’, there is equal diversity of capacity in the Effort and the Desire to Speak;
kutaḥ kāryānyathānupapattigamyatvāt /	why? because the fact of certain well-known effects not being otherwise explicable indicates such diversity;
ubhayatrāpi kāryārthāpatter vyāpriyamāṇatvād iti yāvat //	that is, in both cases, the Presumption based upon the said inexplicability of certain facts is equally operative.
sāmprataṃ vedaprasiddhaṃ diglakṣaṇaṃ śrotramāśritya tat saṃskārabhedācchabdābhivyaktāvadoṣaṃ pratipādayann āha yadvetyādi /	“Or, the idea that should be entertained is that the auditory organ consists of space, which idea would be in accordance with the Veda [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 150];
nākāśādyātmakaṃ hyuktaṃ vede śrotraṃ kathañcana //	nowhere in the.veda has it been said that the auditory organ consists in ākāśa, etc.
diśaḥ śrotram it hyetat pralayeṣvabhidhīyate /	In connection with dissolutions, it has been declared (in the Veda) that the auditory organ becomes dissolved into space;
tac ca prakṛtigāmitvavacanaṃ cakṣurādivat // dikśrotratāmatir iti /	here we have the description of the organs, like the eye and the rest, becoming dissolved into their original constituents.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 150-151].
digeva śrotram ityevaṃ diśaḥ śrotratvaniścayaḥ kārya ity arthaḥ /	‘The idea that the Auditory Organ consists in space’; i.e. the conclusion should be accepted that ‘Space itself is the Auditory Organ.’
katham ity āha nākāśātmakam iti /	Why so? ‘Because nowhere in the Veda, etc. etc.’
yadyevaṃ dikśrotram ityevam api vede noktam, tat kathaṃ labhyata ity āha diśaḥśrotram ityādi /	If that is so, then, nowhere in the Veda is it found declared that ‘Space constitutes the Auditory Organ’; then why should that idea be accepted?
prakṛtiṣu svabhāveṣu layāḥ pralayāḥ /	Answer: ‘In connection with Dissolutions, etc. etc.’ ‘Dissolution’ consists in becoming dissolved into the original constituent cause.
nāśakāle prāṇināṃ cakṣurādayaḥ svasyāṃ svasyāṃ prakṛtau līyante /	At the time of the death of living beings, their Eye and other organs become dissolved into their respective original constituent causes;
tatra ca pralaye paśumadhikṛtyoktaṃ vede ---"sūryam asya cakṣur gamayatāt, diśaḥśrotra" miti / atrāpi gamayatād iti sambandhaḥ /	in connection with the animal that is sacrificed, it is said in the Veda ‘May its Eye revert to the Sun, and the Ear to Space’, ‘may revert’ is to be construed with the latter sentence also.
yadyata āgataṃ tat tatra gacchatvity arthaḥ /	‘May revert’ i.e. may it go to that from where it came.
tena yadyapi vede dik śrotram ityāhatya noktam / tathāpi diśaḥ śrotraṃ gamayatādityanena vākyena sāmarthyād uktam eva /	Thus though in the Veda it has not been directly declared that ‘Space constitutes the Auditory Organ’, yet the sentence ‘may the Ear revert to Space’ clearly implies that idea which is, thus, as good as asserted.
katham ity āha taccetyādi /	How so? Answer: ‘Here we have the description, etc. etc.’;
tacca diśaḥ śrotram iti vacanaṃ śrotrasya prakṛtigāmitvapratipādanaparam / śrotraṃ kartṛṃ diśo gacchatu prakṛtibhūtā ity arthaḥ / katham ivetyāha cakṣurādivad iti //	what the sentence ‘may the Ear revert to Space’ is meant to describe is the fact that the Ear reverts to its original Constituent Cause, the meaning being ‘may the Ear revert to Space, which is its original Constituent Cause ‘Like what?’ ‘Like the Eye, etc.’ (2198-2199)
[p.610]	The same idea is further explained: [see verse 2200 next]
sūryamasya yathā cakṣurbha(ru---)ktaṃ gamayatād iti / tejaḥprakṛtivijñānaṃ tathā śrotraṃ digātmakam // yathā sūryamasya cakṣur gamayatād iti vākyena tejaḥprakṛtivijñānam uktam, cakṣuṣa ityadhyāhāraḥ, tathā śrotraṃ digātmakam uktaṃ diśaḥ śrotram ityanenavākyenetyevaṃ padānāṃ sambandhaḥ kāryaḥ /	“Just as, in connection with the visual organ, it is asserted ‘may his eye revert to the sun’, which conveys the idea that the visual organ has its origin in light, so, in the same manner, the auditory organ consists in space.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 151-152]. Just as in the ease of the sentence ‘May his Eye revert to the Sun’ what is asserted is the idea that the Visual Organ has its origin in Light the term ‘cakṣuṣaḥ’ has to be supplied; in the same manner, what the sentence ‘may the Ear revert to Space’ asserts is the idea of the Auditory Organ having its origin in, and consisting in, Space.
tejaḥprakṛtivijñānaṃ tejomayatvam ity arthaḥ //	‘The idea of Light being the origin’ i.e. the idea of the Visual Organ consisting of Light.
atha kīdṛśī sā digityāha dikretyādi /	Question: What is this ‘Space’ like? Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2201 next]
dikra sarvagataikaiva yāvadvyoma vyavasthitā /	“Space is one and all-pervading, and extends as far as ākāśa;
karṇarandhraparicchinnā śrotramākāśadeśavat //	when it becomes limited within the cavity of the ear, it forms the auditory organ, in the same way as ākāśa does (for the other party).” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 152-153].
sarvagatasyaiva vivaraṇam yāvadvyoma vyavasthiteti /	The ‘all-pervading character’ is explained by the phrase ‘it extends as far as Ākāśa’.
yadyevaṃ badhirādivyavasthā na prāpnoti, ekatvāddiśa ity āha karṇarandhretyādi / na sarvātmanā dik śrotram, kiṃ tarhi---, /	Objection: If this is so, then, there can be no ‘deafness’, etc. Answer: ‘When it becomes limited, etc. etc.’ The entire Space is not the Auditory Organ;
karṇaśaṣkulīparyantaparicchinnā //	it is only that much of Space as is encased within the ear-cavity.
nanu niravayavatvāt tasya katham avayavavibhāgo labhyata ity āha yāvāniti /	Says the Opponent Space being without parts, how do you secure the division of its parts (which the foregoing explanation implies)?
digbhāgo 'pi samaścāsāvāgamāt tu viśiṣyate // yathā"kāśasya saṃyogibhedenāvayavakalpanā tathā diśo 'pi bhaviṣyati /	In the ease of Ākāśa, there is an assumption of parts, on the basis of the objects with which it comes into contact; the same would be the case with Space also.
kastarhyakāśaśrotrapakṣādasya viśeṣa ity āha āgamād iti // tasmād ityupasaṃhāreṇa badhirādivyavasthānaṃ sūcayati /	Question: What then is the difference between this view and the other one under which the Auditory Organ consists of Ākāśa? Answer: ‘With this difference, etc. etc.’ (2202)
tasmāddigdravyabhāgo yaḥ puṇyāpuṇyavaśīkṛtaḥ / karṇarandhraparicchinnaḥ śrotraṃ saṃskriyata ca saḥ //	“Thus then, the auditory organ consists of a part of the substance space, which is influenced by merit and demerit and which comes to be enclosed within the cavity of the ear, and it is this organ that is embellished (by articulation).” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 154-155].
viṣayasyāpi saṃskāre tenaikasyaiva saṃskṛtiḥ /	“Even if the embellishment pertained to the object, it would affect that one object only;
naraiḥ sāmarthyabhedāc ca na sarvair avagamyate //	and on account of the difference in the capacities of men, the sound could not be heard by all.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 83-84].
yaduktam ---"tatra sarvaiḥ pratīyeta śabdaḥ saṃskriyate yadī"ti, tatra na doṣaḥ /	[verse 2204]: It has been argued above (under Text 2157) that ‘if the Word-Sound were embellished, it should be heard by all men’, This criticism is not applicable at all.
kutaḥ ---, narāṇāṃ sāmarthyabhedāt vāyoḥ śrotrasaṃskārasya sannidhānāsannidhānābhyāṃ śrotrasaṃskārasya bhinnatvāt sāmarthyabhedaḥ //	Why? Because on account of the difference in the capacities of men; this difference in the capacity is due to the fact that in the case of some men the air embellishing the Organ is in close proximity to them, while in others, it is not so.
nanu ca nityasarvagatatvena sarvān puruṣān pratyaviśiṣṭatvācchabdasya kathaṃ grahaṇāgrahaṇe syātām ity āha yathaivetyādi /	“Just as (under the opponent’s view) the word-sound, though produced and appearing equally with regard to all men, is not heard by all, on account of the diversities of direction, place and so forth, in the same manner, (under our view also) the sound is heard only by one whose auditory organ is embellished by the articulations made near him, and not by persons at a distance.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 84-86].
[p.611]	(2207) commentary.
tathaiva yat samīpasthair nādaiḥ syād yasya saṃskṛtiḥ / tenaiva śrūyate śabdo na dūrasthaiḥ kathañcana //	[verses 2205-2206]: Says the Opponent The Sound being one and all-pervading, it must be equally related to all men; how then could there be apprehension (by some) and non-apprehension (by others) of it?
atha katham idam avasīyate vāyubhyo viṣayasya saṃskāro bhavati / natu viṣaya evetyāha śabdotpatter ityādi /	Question: How is it known that what proceeds from the Air-vibrations is the embellishment of the Object (Sound), and not the Object itself? Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2207 above]:
śabdotpatter niṣiddhatvād anyathānupapattitaḥ /	On the ground of Recognition, it has been established that Sound is one and all-pervading;
pratyabhijñayā śabdasya vibhutvaikatvayoḥ siddhatvān na śabdotpattiḥ / tasmāt sāmarthyāt saṃskārotpattir dhvanibhyo bhavati na śabdasyeti gamyate // nanu ca bījāṅkurādāviva tadbhāvabhāvitayā dhvanikāryatvaṃ śabdānāṃ siddham /	hence there can be no production of Sound [there can be only manifestation of it]; and from this it is deduced, by implication, that what is produced by the articulations is the embellishment, not the Word-Sound. “All that the fact of one thing appearing only when the other is there indicates is the presence (in the latter) of a certain potency (or capacity), just like the potency in the auditory organ;
yathāhi bījādibhāve 'ṅkurādīnām upalambhāt tat kāryatvaṃ teṣām /	Says the Opponent: It is clearly known that Sound is the effect of the articulations, from the fact that it appears only when these are there, just as, on similar grounds, the sprout is known to be the Effect of the Seed.
evaṃ dhvanibhāve śabdānām upalambho 'sti, kimiti tat kāryatvaṃ na bhavet, etāvanmātranibandhanatvāt kāryavyavahārasyetyāha tadbhāvabhāvitetyādi /	why then, should Sound be not regarded as the effect produced, by the articulations? Specially because the said fact is the sole basis for anything being regarded as the effect of something else.
śrotraśaktivadeveṣṭā buddhis tatra hi saṃhṛtā //	There is hearing of Sound when the Auditory Organ is there;
yathāhi śrotrabhāve śabdopalambho 'sti, na ca tatas tadbhāvabhāvitvācchrotrasya śabdaṃ prati jananaśaktir anumīyate, kiṃ tarhi---, grahaṇaśaktiḥ, evam ihāpidhvanīnāṃ śaktisadbhāvamātrāvabodhinī bhavettadbhāvabhāvitā, natūtpādakaśaktyavabodhinī, śaktimātre tasyāḥ pratibandho natu śaktiviśeṣa iti yāvat /	but this fact of the Sound being heard only when the Organ is there does not lead to the inference that the Auditory Organ possesses the potency to produce Sound; all that can he inferred is that it has the potency or capacity of apprehending it. Similarly, in the case in question, all that the fact of Sound being heard only when the articulations are there can justify is the inference that these articulations possess a certain potency; it cannot indicate the presence in them of the capacity to produce Sound; as the said fact is concomitant only with the presence of the capacity in general, and not with any particular kind of Capacity.
ataḥ śaktiviśeṣe sādhye vyabhicāritvamasyā iti pratipāditaṃ bhavati /	Hence in the proving of the particular kind of Capacity, the said fact, if cited as the Probans, cannot but be ‘fallible’, ‘inconclusive’.

yadyapyadhiṣṭhānasaṃskārakāriṇo nādās taddeśendriyasaṃskārakā vā / tathāpi prāptā eva santaḥ saṃskārabhāji padārthe saṃskāraṃ kurvanti nāprāptā ityato na sarvapuruṣādhiṣṭhānādisaṃskāraḥ /

Even if Articulations tend to embellish the substratum, or the organ localised in that substratum, in either case, it is only when they actually get at the object to be embellished that they produce the embellishment; not when they do not get at it. Hence the embellishment cannot affect the substratum of the organs of all persons.

śrotragrahaṇam upalakṣaṇam /

The mention of the ‘Auditory Organ’ in the Text is only by way of illustration;

adhiṣṭhānasaṃskāro 'pi na bhavatyeva /

for the matter of that there is no embellishment of the substratum also.

kvacit aprāptakarṇadeśādveti pāṭhaḥ /

In some places, the reading is ‘aprāptaikarṇadeśādvā’.

tatra pūrvamadhiṣṭhānasaṃskāramukhena śrotrasaṃskāramāśritya parihāra uktaḥ /

Under that reading, the meaning would be that the answer given before was based upon the idea of the embellishment affecting the Organ through its substratum;

sāmprataṃ mābhūd adhiṣṭhānasaṃskāradvāreṇa śrotrasaṃskāras tathāpyadoṣoyataḥ prāptakarṇaśaṣkulīmūlā eva vāyavaḥ śrotrasaṃskārāyālam nāprāptāityataḥ pakṣāntaramuktam /

while the answer provided under the clause in question is that even when there is no embellishment of the Organ through the embellishment of its substratum, there can be no objection to the view put forward; because only those air-particles are fit for bringing about the embellishment which have actually reached the base of the Ear-drum, not those that have not got at it;

ata ityupasaṃhāraḥ //

‘Thus, etc.’ This sums up the explanation.

nanvityādinā pakṣatraye 'pyanantarodita parasya codyamāśaṅkate /

The following text sets forth an objection raised by the Opponent against all the three alternative explanations detailed above: [see verse 2188 next]

nanvekasminnadhiṣṭhāne labdhasaṃskāramindriyam / bodhakaṃ sarvadeheṣu syād ekendriyavādinaḥ // [p.607] ekasya śrotrasya saṃskṛtāsaṃskṛtaparasparaviruddhadharmadvayāyogād ekatra saṃskārāt sarvadeheṣvabhinnatvāt saṃskṛtam eveti badhirāder api bodhakaṃ prāpnoti śrotramekendriyavādinaḥ /

“The opponent may argue as follows ‘Having become embellished in one substratum, the auditory organ should bring about the cognition of the word-sound in all bodies, according to one who holds the view that the auditory organ is one only (for all)’.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 71-73]. The Auditory Organ, being one only, it cannot have the two mutually contradictory characters of being embellished and being not-embellished; hence when there would be embellishment in one, the organ being the same in all bodies, it would become embellished in all bodies;

tataś ca bādhiryādivyavasthānaṃ na syāt //

And in that case, there could be no deafness at all.

puṃsām ityādinā pratividhatte / puṃsāṃ dehapradeśeṣu vijṇYānotpattir iṣyate /

The answer to the above objection (provided by the Mīmāṃsaka) is as follows: [see verse 2189 next] “The appearance of the cognition (of sound) is held to take place in the bodies of persons;

tena pradhānavaideśyād viguṇā śrotrasaṃskṛtiḥ //

consequently, by reason of the principal factor (bodies) occupying different places, the embellishment of the auditory organ is inefficient to that extent.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 72-73].

puṃsāmātmanāṃ sarvagatatve 'pi śarīreṣvapi dharmādharmaparigṛhīteṣu vijṇYānotpattir mīmāṃsakādibhir iṣyate /

Though ‘Persons’ in the shape of Souls are all-pervading, yet the view of the Mīmāṃsakas is that Cognitions appear only in the bodies that are adopted by the Souls by virtue of their merit and demerit.

tena pradhānasya dehasya vaideśyāt bhinnadeśatvāt / śrotrasyaivaṃ sarvagatasyāpi saṃskṛtir viguṇā tena yathoktadoṣānavasaraḥ /

Hence as this principal factor, in the shape of the bodies, would be occupying different points in space, the embellishment in question, of the Auditory Organ, even though the Organ is all-pervading remains inefficient (in the bringing about of the Cognition of Sound in all persons);

kvacit sātra saṃskṛtir iti pāṭhaḥ /

In some manuscripts the reading is ‘sātra saṃskṛtiḥ’;

tatra sā saṃskṛtiḥ śrotrasyeti sambandhaḥ //

in which case, the construction would be ‘sā saṃskṛtiḥ śrotrasya’, ‘that embellishment of the Auditory Organ’, (2189)

nanu ca sarvagatatvād ātmanaḥ sarvatra grahaṇaprasaṅgaḥ śabdasyānivārita evetyāha niṣpradeśo 'pi ceti / niṣpradeśo 'pi cātmā naḥ kārtsnyena ca vidannapi /

“Even though, according to us, the soul is without parts and is conscious of all things everywhere, yet it actually apprehends the thing in the body only; and there can be nothing wrong in this explanation. [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 73-74.] On the same grounds does deafness also become limited in scope;

śarīra eva gṛhṇātītyevamuktir na duṣyati // bādhiryādivyavasthānam etenaiva ca hetunā /

it does not form part of the experience of another soul, because it is influenced by merit and demerit (which varies with different souls).

tadevābhogyamanyasya dharmādharmāvaśīkṛtam // yathā tatra bhavanneva svāmitvād avaropitaḥ / na bhogaṃ labhate tadvad badhiro 'nyatra śṛṇvati //

Just as when the village-lord has been removed from the lordship, though continuing to live in the village, does not enjoy the privileges of the lordship, so the soul of the deaf man deprived of the auditory organ in the body, though continuing to dwell in the body, does not enjoy the experience (of hearing sounds), which other men are hearing.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 76-78].

etad utkaṃ bhavati /

What is meant is as follows:

yadyapyevam, tathāpi dharmādivaśīkṛtaśarīrāvadhikamevātmanaḥ śābdagrahaṇamato na doṣaḥ /

Though it is as stated, yet the actual cognition of Sound by the Soul appears only within the limits of the body with which it has been equipped by reason of its Merit and Demerit; hence the objection urged is not applicable.

kathaṃ punar abhinnasyātmanaḥ śrotrasya grahaṇāgrahaṇasaṃskārāsaṃskāravibhāga iti cet na /

Question: The Soul being the same, how can there be such differentiation as cognition and non-cognition and embellishment and non-embellishment of the Auditory Organ? Answer.

yathā"kāśasyānavayavasyāpi saṃyogipadārthabhedād ghaṭākāśaṃ piṭharākāśam iti bhedo bhavati tathehāpi bhaviṣyati /

Though Ākāśa is without parts yet, on account of the diversity of the objects with which it comes into contact, it becomes subject to distinctions as ‘ākāśa in the Jar’, ‘ākāśa in the Pot’ and so forth; the same would be the case in the matter under consideration also.

ata eva ca vyāpiniravayavasya śrotrasya saṃsargibhedād badhiryādi vyavasthitir iti darśayati / (bādhiryādīti)/

It is for this same reason that, though the Auditory Organ (as Ākāśa) is all-pervading and without parts, yet there are restrictions in the matter of Deafness, etc. on account of the diversity among objects with which the organ comes into contact.

eteneti / saṃyogibhedena hetunā /

This is what is meant by the words ‘On the same grounds, etc. etc.;’ the ‘grounds’ consist in the diversity among objects with which it comes into contact.

yadi nāma saṃyogino bhinnas tathāpi kimiti kaścid eva badhiro bhavatītyāha ---tadevābhogyam iti / tadeva śrotramanyasya puruṣasya na bhogyaṃ bhavati, kutaḥ ---, /

Question: If the objects with which the Organ comes into contact are diverse, even so, why is it that only a certain person becomes deaf? Answer: ‘It does not form part of the experience, etc. etc.’ That same defective Auditory Organ does not form part of the experience of another person;

dharmādharmābhyām avaśīkṛtatvāt /

why? because it is influenced by Merit and Demerit.

etad eva dṛṣṭānte sphuṭayann āha yathā tatretyādi /

This same idea is further clarified by means of an example.

yathā kaścid grāmādeḥ svāmī tatra grāmādau bhavanneva vidyamāna [p.608] eva rājṇYā svāmitvādavaropitastasminneva grāme bhogaṃ na labhate tadvad badhiro 'nyatrānyasmin puruṣe śṛṇvatyapi sati na śṛṇoti //2190 //2191 //2192 //

‘Just as, when the village-lord, etc. etc.’ The Lord of a certain village, even though continuing to live in the village, if he is removed by the King from the Lordship, does not enjoy the same privileges in the same village; in the same manner, the deaf man does not hear the Sound, even though another man hears it. “As a matter of fact, the auditory organ, the sound and its substratum have themselves no parts, and they do not exist at any one place;

nanu ca śrotraśabdākāśānāṃ trayāṇām api niravayavatvād vibhutvācca(na)pradeśavṛttir asti /

Says the Opponent All the three factors the Auditory Organ, the Sound and Ākāśa being without parts and all-pervading, no partial existence is possible for any of them;

tat katham ekadeśavṛttitvaniyatagrahaṇāgrahaṇādivibhāgo labhyata ity āha śrotraśabdāśrayāṇām ityādi /

then how do you get at the distinction into ‘hearing’ and ‘non-hearing’ determined by such partial existence? Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2193 above]

śrotraśabdāśrayāṇāṃ ca na nāmāvayavāḥ svayam /

The Auditory Organ, the Sound, and the substratum of the Sound i.e. Ākāśa, these themselves have no parts;

nacaikadeśavṛttitvaṃ tathāpyetan na duṣyati //

yet such parts are attributed to them figuratively through the diversity among objects with which they come into contact;

na nāmāvayavāḥ svayam iti /

this is what is meant by the qualifying term ‘themselves

pradeśavṛttitvaniyatagrahaṇādikam //

‘Even so, etc. etc.’ ‘our view’, regarding the partial existence, and restricted apprehension of sound and so forth.

katham ity āha vyaṇYjakānām ityādi /

Question: How so? Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2194 next]

vyañjakānāṃ hi vāyūnāṃ bhinnāvayavadeśatā /

“The (vibrating) air-particles, which are the manifesters of the word-sound, have their different parts occupying different points in space;

jātibhedaś ca tenaiva saṃskāro vyavatiṣṭhate //

and it is through this that the embellishment becomes regulated.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 79-80].

tadbhāvo bhinnāvayavadeśatā /

They have different parts occupying different points in space;

jātibhedaśceti / bhinnatātvādikāraṇasāmagrībhedāt //

and there are different kinds of them also, due to the difference among the contributory causes in the form of such diverse things as the Palate and the rest.

nanu coktaṃ sakṛcca saṃskṛtaṃ śrotraṃ sarvaśabdān prabodhayed ityatrottaram āha anyārthaṃ prerita ityādi /

Says the Opponent It has been already pointed out that, ‘on being embellished once, the Auditory Organ should bring about the cognition of all Sounds’ (under Text 2164). The answer to this (from the Mīmāṃsaka) is as follows: [see verse 2195 next]

anyārthaṃ prerito vāyur yathā nānyaṃ karoti saḥ / tathānyavarṇasaṃskāraśakto nānyaṃ kariṣyati //

“Just as the air-vibration put forth for the purpose of one does not bring about another, in the same manner, the air-vibration, capable of bringing about the embellishment for the apprehension of one letter will not bring about another.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 80-81].

anyārtham iti / anyavarṇaniṣpattyartham /

‘For the purpose of one’ for the producing of another Letter.

anyavarṇapratītyarthaḥ saṃskāro yaḥ śrotrasya so 'nyāvarṇasaṃksāraśabdenoktaḥ /

‘Capable of bringing about, etc, etc.’ that embellishment of the Auditory Organ which brings about the hearing of the Letter, is what is spoken of bore by the term ‘anyavarṇa-saṃskāra’;

natu varṇasaṃskāra eva śrotrasaṃskārasya prakṛtatvāt /

and it is not the embellishment of the Letter itself that is meant; that it is so follows from the fact that it is the embellishment of the Auditory Organ that forms the subject-matter of the present discussion.

nānyaṃ kariṣyatīti /

‘Will not bring about another’;

nānyaṃ varṇaṃ śrotrasaṃskāradvāreṇa saṃskariṣyatītyarthaḥ //

i.e. will not embellish another Letter through the embellishment of the Auditory Organ.

atha vāyūnām eva kasmād eṣa pratiniyama ity āha anyair ityādi /

Question: Why should there be the restriction in the case of the Air-vibrations only? Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2196 next]

anyais tālvādisaṃyogair varṇo nānyo yathaiva ca /

“One set of contacts with the palate, etc. serves to bring about only one letter-sound, not another;

tathā dhvanyantarakṣepo na dhvanyantarasāribhiḥ //

in the same manner the contacts bringing about one articulation do not serve to bring about any other articulation.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 81-82].

tālvādisaṃyogabhedād vyañjakā vāyavo dhvanayo bhinnā ityabhiprāyaḥ /

What is in meant is that there are different articulations, in the shape of Air-vibrations which serve to manifest Sounds;

kriyate ityadhyāhāraḥ /

‘Bringing about of other articulations’ i.e. the putting forth of them.

dhvanyantarasāribhis tālvādisaṃyogair iti sāmānādhikaraṇyam //

‘Serving to bring about one articulation’ is to be construed with ‘the contacts of the Palate, etc.'’ (2196)

tasmād ityupasaṃharati

The argument is summed up in the following [see verse 2197 next]

tasmād utpattyabhivyaktyoḥ kāryārthāpattitaḥ samaḥ / sāmarthyabhedaḥ sarvatra syāt prayatnavivakṣayoḥ //

“For these reasons in the production and manifestation (of word-sounds), the diversity of capacity is equally present, in the effort and the desire to speak, such diversity being presumed on the basis of certain effects (facts) which cannot be otherwise explained.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 82-83].

utpattyabhivyaktyor iti saptamyantam / śabdasyotpattāvabhivyaktau ca prayatnasya vivakṣāyāś ca tulyaḥ sāmarthyabhedaḥ /

The word ‘utpattyabhivyaktyoḥ’ has the Locative ending, the meaning being ‘in the production and in the manifestation of the Word-Sound’, there is equal diversity of capacity in the Effort and the Desire to Speak;

kutaḥ kāryānyathānupapattigamyatvāt /

why? because the fact of certain well-known effects not being otherwise explicable indicates such diversity;

ubhayatrāpi kāryārthāpatter vyāpriyamāṇatvād iti yāvat //

that is, in both cases, the Presumption based upon the said inexplicability of certain facts is equally operative.

sāmprataṃ vedaprasiddhaṃ diglakṣaṇaṃ śrotramāśritya tat saṃskārabhedācchabdābhivyaktāvadoṣaṃ pratipādayann āha yadvetyādi /

“Or, the idea that should be entertained is that the auditory organ consists of space, which idea would be in accordance with the Veda [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 150];

nākāśādyātmakaṃ hyuktaṃ vede śrotraṃ kathañcana //

nowhere in the.veda has it been said that the auditory organ consists in ākāśa, etc.

diśaḥ śrotram it hyetat pralayeṣvabhidhīyate /

In connection with dissolutions, it has been declared (in the Veda) that the auditory organ becomes dissolved into space;

tac ca prakṛtigāmitvavacanaṃ cakṣurādivat // dikśrotratāmatir iti /

here we have the description of the organs, like the eye and the rest, becoming dissolved into their original constituents.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 150-151].

digeva śrotram ityevaṃ diśaḥ śrotratvaniścayaḥ kārya ity arthaḥ /

‘The idea that the Auditory Organ consists in space’; i.e. the conclusion should be accepted that ‘Space itself is the Auditory Organ.’

katham ity āha nākāśātmakam iti /

Why so? ‘Because nowhere in the Veda, etc. etc.’

yadyevaṃ dikśrotram ityevam api vede noktam, tat kathaṃ labhyata ity āha diśaḥśrotram ityādi /

If that is so, then, nowhere in the Veda is it found declared that ‘Space constitutes the Auditory Organ’; then why should that idea be accepted?

prakṛtiṣu svabhāveṣu layāḥ pralayāḥ /

Answer: ‘In connection with Dissolutions, etc. etc.’ ‘Dissolution’ consists in becoming dissolved into the original constituent cause.

nāśakāle prāṇināṃ cakṣurādayaḥ svasyāṃ svasyāṃ prakṛtau līyante /

At the time of the death of living beings, their Eye and other organs become dissolved into their respective original constituent causes;

tatra ca pralaye paśumadhikṛtyoktaṃ vede ---"sūryam asya cakṣur gamayatāt, diśaḥśrotra" miti / atrāpi gamayatād iti sambandhaḥ /

in connection with the animal that is sacrificed, it is said in the Veda ‘May its Eye revert to the Sun, and the Ear to Space’, ‘may revert’ is to be construed with the latter sentence also.

yadyata āgataṃ tat tatra gacchatvity arthaḥ /

‘May revert’ i.e. may it go to that from where it came.

tena yadyapi vede dik śrotram ityāhatya noktam / tathāpi diśaḥ śrotraṃ gamayatādityanena vākyena sāmarthyād uktam eva /

Thus though in the Veda it has not been directly declared that ‘Space constitutes the Auditory Organ’, yet the sentence ‘may the Ear revert to Space’ clearly implies that idea which is, thus, as good as asserted.

katham ity āha taccetyādi /

How so? Answer: ‘Here we have the description, etc. etc.’;

tacca diśaḥ śrotram iti vacanaṃ śrotrasya prakṛtigāmitvapratipādanaparam / śrotraṃ kartṛṃ diśo gacchatu prakṛtibhūtā ity arthaḥ / katham ivetyāha cakṣurādivad iti //

what the sentence ‘may the Ear revert to Space’ is meant to describe is the fact that the Ear reverts to its original Constituent Cause, the meaning being ‘may the Ear revert to Space, which is its original Constituent Cause ‘Like what?’ ‘Like the Eye, etc.’ (2198-2199)

[p.610]

The same idea is further explained: [see verse 2200 next]

sūryamasya yathā cakṣurbha(ru---)ktaṃ gamayatād iti / tejaḥprakṛtivijñānaṃ tathā śrotraṃ digātmakam // yathā sūryamasya cakṣur gamayatād iti vākyena tejaḥprakṛtivijñānam uktam, cakṣuṣa ityadhyāhāraḥ, tathā śrotraṃ digātmakam uktaṃ diśaḥ śrotram ityanenavākyenetyevaṃ padānāṃ sambandhaḥ kāryaḥ /

“Just as, in connection with the visual organ, it is asserted ‘may his eye revert to the sun’, which conveys the idea that the visual organ has its origin in light, so, in the same manner, the auditory organ consists in space.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 151-152]. Just as in the ease of the sentence ‘May his Eye revert to the Sun’ what is asserted is the idea that the Visual Organ has its origin in Light the term ‘cakṣuṣaḥ’ has to be supplied; in the same manner, what the sentence ‘may the Ear revert to Space’ asserts is the idea of the Auditory Organ having its origin in, and consisting in, Space.

tejaḥprakṛtivijñānaṃ tejomayatvam ity arthaḥ //

‘The idea of Light being the origin’ i.e. the idea of the Visual Organ consisting of Light.

atha kīdṛśī sā digityāha dikretyādi /

Question: What is this ‘Space’ like? Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2201 next]

dikra sarvagataikaiva yāvadvyoma vyavasthitā /

“Space is one and all-pervading, and extends as far as ākāśa;

karṇarandhraparicchinnā śrotramākāśadeśavat //

when it becomes limited within the cavity of the ear, it forms the auditory organ, in the same way as ākāśa does (for the other party).” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 152-153].

sarvagatasyaiva vivaraṇam yāvadvyoma vyavasthiteti /

The ‘all-pervading character’ is explained by the phrase ‘it extends as far as Ākāśa’.

yadyevaṃ badhirādivyavasthā na prāpnoti, ekatvāddiśa ity āha karṇarandhretyādi / na sarvātmanā dik śrotram, kiṃ tarhi---, /

Objection: If this is so, then, there can be no ‘deafness’, etc. Answer: ‘When it becomes limited, etc. etc.’ The entire Space is not the Auditory Organ;

karṇaśaṣkulīparyantaparicchinnā //

it is only that much of Space as is encased within the ear-cavity.

nanu niravayavatvāt tasya katham avayavavibhāgo labhyata ity āha yāvāniti /

Says the Opponent Space being without parts, how do you secure the division of its parts (which the foregoing explanation implies)?

digbhāgo 'pi samaścāsāvāgamāt tu viśiṣyate // yathā"kāśasya saṃyogibhedenāvayavakalpanā tathā diśo 'pi bhaviṣyati /

In the ease of Ākāśa, there is an assumption of parts, on the basis of the objects with which it comes into contact; the same would be the case with Space also.

kastarhyakāśaśrotrapakṣādasya viśeṣa ity āha āgamād iti // tasmād ityupasaṃhāreṇa badhirādivyavasthānaṃ sūcayati /

Question: What then is the difference between this view and the other one under which the Auditory Organ consists of Ākāśa? Answer: ‘With this difference, etc. etc.’ (2202)

tasmāddigdravyabhāgo yaḥ puṇyāpuṇyavaśīkṛtaḥ / karṇarandhraparicchinnaḥ śrotraṃ saṃskriyata ca saḥ //

“Thus then, the auditory organ consists of a part of the substance space, which is influenced by merit and demerit and which comes to be enclosed within the cavity of the ear, and it is this organ that is embellished (by articulation).” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 154-155].

viṣayasyāpi saṃskāre tenaikasyaiva saṃskṛtiḥ /

“Even if the embellishment pertained to the object, it would affect that one object only;

naraiḥ sāmarthyabhedāc ca na sarvair avagamyate //

and on account of the difference in the capacities of men, the sound could not be heard by all.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 83-84].

yaduktam ---"tatra sarvaiḥ pratīyeta śabdaḥ saṃskriyate yadī"ti, tatra na doṣaḥ /

[verse 2204]: It has been argued above (under Text 2157) that ‘if the Word-Sound were embellished, it should be heard by all men’, This criticism is not applicable at all.

kutaḥ ---, narāṇāṃ sāmarthyabhedāt vāyoḥ śrotrasaṃskārasya sannidhānāsannidhānābhyāṃ śrotrasaṃskārasya bhinnatvāt sāmarthyabhedaḥ //

Why? Because on account of the difference in the capacities of men; this difference in the capacity is due to the fact that in the case of some men the air embellishing the Organ is in close proximity to them, while in others, it is not so.

nanu ca nityasarvagatatvena sarvān puruṣān pratyaviśiṣṭatvācchabdasya kathaṃ grahaṇāgrahaṇe syātām ity āha yathaivetyādi /

“Just as (under the opponent’s view) the word-sound, though produced and appearing equally with regard to all men, is not heard by all, on account of the diversities of direction, place and so forth, in the same manner, (under our view also) the sound is heard only by one whose auditory organ is embellished by the articulations made near him, and not by persons at a distance.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 84-86].

[p.611]

(2207) commentary.

tathaiva yat samīpasthair nādaiḥ syād yasya saṃskṛtiḥ / tenaiva śrūyate śabdo na dūrasthaiḥ kathañcana //

[verses 2205-2206]: Says the Opponent The Sound being one and all-pervading, it must be equally related to all men; how then could there be apprehension (by some) and non-apprehension (by others) of it?

atha katham idam avasīyate vāyubhyo viṣayasya saṃskāro bhavati / natu viṣaya evetyāha śabdotpatter ityādi /

Question: How is it known that what proceeds from the Air-vibrations is the embellishment of the Object (Sound), and not the Object itself? Answer (from the Mīmāṃsaka): [see verse 2207 above]:

śabdotpatter niṣiddhatvād anyathānupapattitaḥ /

On the ground of Recognition, it has been established that Sound is one and all-pervading;

pratyabhijñayā śabdasya vibhutvaikatvayoḥ siddhatvān na śabdotpattiḥ / tasmāt sāmarthyāt saṃskārotpattir dhvanibhyo bhavati na śabdasyeti gamyate // nanu ca bījāṅkurādāviva tadbhāvabhāvitayā dhvanikāryatvaṃ śabdānāṃ siddham /

hence there can be no production of Sound [there can be only manifestation of it]; and from this it is deduced, by implication, that what is produced by the articulations is the embellishment, not the Word-Sound. “All that the fact of one thing appearing only when the other is there indicates is the presence (in the latter) of a certain potency (or capacity), just like the potency in the auditory organ;

yathāhi bījādibhāve 'ṅkurādīnām upalambhāt tat kāryatvaṃ teṣām /

Says the Opponent: It is clearly known that Sound is the effect of the articulations, from the fact that it appears only when these are there, just as, on similar grounds, the sprout is known to be the Effect of the Seed.

evaṃ dhvanibhāve śabdānām upalambho 'sti, kimiti tat kāryatvaṃ na bhavet, etāvanmātranibandhanatvāt kāryavyavahārasyetyāha tadbhāvabhāvitetyādi /

why then, should Sound be not regarded as the effect produced, by the articulations? Specially because the said fact is the sole basis for anything being regarded as the effect of something else.

śrotraśaktivadeveṣṭā buddhis tatra hi saṃhṛtā //

There is hearing of Sound when the Auditory Organ is there;

yathāhi śrotrabhāve śabdopalambho 'sti, na ca tatas tadbhāvabhāvitvācchrotrasya śabdaṃ prati jananaśaktir anumīyate, kiṃ tarhi---, grahaṇaśaktiḥ, evam ihāpidhvanīnāṃ śaktisadbhāvamātrāvabodhinī bhavettadbhāvabhāvitā, natūtpādakaśaktyavabodhinī, śaktimātre tasyāḥ pratibandho natu śaktiviśeṣa iti yāvat /

but this fact of the Sound being heard only when the Organ is there does not lead to the inference that the Auditory Organ possesses the potency to produce Sound; all that can he inferred is that it has the potency or capacity of apprehending it. Similarly, in the case in question, all that the fact of Sound being heard only when the articulations are there can justify is the inference that these articulations possess a certain potency; it cannot indicate the presence in them of the capacity to produce Sound; as the said fact is concomitant only with the presence of the capacity in general, and not with any particular kind of Capacity.

ataḥ śaktiviśeṣe sādhye vyabhicāritvamasyā iti pratipāditaṃ bhavati /

Hence in the proving of the particular kind of Capacity, the said fact, if cited as the Probans, cannot but be ‘fallible’, ‘inconclusive’.