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

sanskrit stringlengths 4 615	english stringlengths 2 1.3k
katham idānīṃ saṃskāraśaktiviśeṣāvagatir ity āha buddhis tatra hi saṃhṛteti /	This is what is meant by the text. Question: How then is there the idea of the particular Capacity in the ‘Embellishment’?
pratyabhijñayā nityatvasya siddhatvāt / anyathanupapattyā tatra saṃskāraviśeṣe tu buddhir upasaṃhṛtā bhāṣyakāreṇa natu tadbhāvabhāvitāmātrataḥ saṃskāraśaktir anumīyata ity arthaḥ //	Answer: ‘There the Presumption has been allowed to rest.’ That is, Recognition having established the Eternality of the Word-Sound, the Presumption based upon the fact of the well-known phenomenon of Hearing not being otherwise explicable has been made by the author of the Bhāṣya (Śabara) to rest in the particular embellishment;
ubhayasaṃskārapakṣe yaduktam pratyekābhihitā doṣāḥ syur dvayor api saṃskṛ tāviti atrāha saṃskāradvayapakṣe tu vṛthā doṣadvayaṃ hi taditi /	and the capacity of this embellishment has not been inferred merely from the fact of concomitance (of the Embellishment and the Hearing). “As regards the view that there is embellishment of both, the assertion that it is open to both sets of objections is futile.
saṃskāradvayapakṣe tu vṛthā doṣadvayaṃ hi tat / yenānyataravaikalyāt sarvaiḥ śabdo na gamyate //	Because when sound is not heard by all, it is due to the deficiency in either one of the two.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 86-87].
[p.612] doṣadvayamubhayor api pakṣayor yatprāguktaṃ tat tu vṛthā anarthakam /	The assertion made previously that both sets of objections are applicable is futile, useless.
yasmāt /	Why?
anyatarasya śrotrasaṃskārasya (arthsaṃskārasya) vā vaikalyāt / na śabdo gamyate /	Because, to the deñciency in either one of the two of the embellishment of the Auditory Organ, or of the embellishment of the object, Sound is due the fact that Sound is not heard.
tathā hi satyapi śabdasaṃskāre badhirasya śrotrasaṃskāravaikalyān na śabdagrahaṇam / abadhirasyāpyanabhivyakteḥśabda(syā)grahaṇam /	For instance, even when the embellishment of the Sound is there, the deaf man does not hear the Sound, because his organ is deficient; and even when there is no deafness, if there is no manifestation of the Sound (by articulation), there is no hearing of the Sound.
kvacit pāṭho mṛṣā doṣadvaye vaca iti /	The reading in some places is ‘mṛṣā doṣadvaye vacaḥ’, the meaning of which is clear.
sa ca subodhaḥ //	and yet it does not make it many;
nanu ca yadi sarvagataḥ śabdaḥ katham asya ghaṭāder iva deśavicchede nānātvamupalabhyate / yāvatā sarvatra sadbhāvād avicchinnarūpeṇa sarvatrāvagatir yuktā /	Says the Opponent If the Word-Sound is all-pervading, how is it that it is perceived as several just like the Jar, when there is diversity of place? As a matter of fact, as it is all-pervading, it should be always perceived in an uninterrupted form.
naca sarvagatasya dūrāsannādibhedo yuktaḥ /	Nor should there be any distinctions of far and near in the case of what is all-pervading;
nāpyāgamaḥ kutaściddeśāt, tasya sarvatra sthitatvāt /	nor can it come in from any place, as it is always present everywhere.
nāpi nityasya dīrghahrasvamandataratamādisvabhāvabhedo yuktaḥ /	Further as it is eternal, there can be no such distinctions as long and short, or of various degrees of loudness and so forth.
kālabhedaśca na yuktaḥ /	Nor again is difference of time possible.
tasmād deśakālasvabhāvebhedena vedyamānatvād ghaṭādivadbhinno 'nityaś ca siddhaḥ śabda iti tat katham ucyate śabdotpatter niṣiddhatvād anyathānupapattitaḥ /	From all this it follows that because Sound is actually perceived as affected and diversified in place, time and form, therefore, like the Jar, it must be diverse and evanescent. How then is it that the assertion has been made above (under Text 2207) that) “Inasmuch as the idea of the production of Sound has been rejected, etc. etc.”?
iti // atrāha jalādiṣvityādi /	The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to the above is as follows: [see verse 2210 above]:
anena deśabhedena vedyamānatvasyānaikāntikatvam āha //	What is meant to be shown by this is that the fact of being perceived as diverse in different places, as a Reason for diversity, is ‘Inconclusive’.
vyañjakadhvanyadhīnatvāt taddeśe hi sa gṛhyate /	“Sound is heard in only a particular place, because it is dependent (for its cognition) upon the articulation that manifests it;
naca dhvanīnāṃ sāmarthyaṃ vyāptuṃ vyoma nirantaram // tena vicchinnarūpeṇa nāsau sarvatra gamyate /	and articulations have not the capacity to pervade the entire space; consequently, the word-sound is not heard continuously all over the world;
dhvanīnāṃ bhinnadeśatvāchrutis tatrānurudyate // apūritāntarālatvād vicchedaścāvasīyate / teṣāṃ cālpakadeśatvācchabde 'pyavibhutāmatiḥ //	and because the articulations appear in different places, the hearing is restricted to those places; and as the intervening spaces (between the articulations) are not filled up (by the articulation), there is the cognition of a break (in the continuity of the sound).
gatimadvegavatvābhyāṃ te cāyānti yato yataḥ / śrotā tatas tataḥ śabdamāyāntam eiva manyate //	Further, as these articulations have movement and a certain velocity, from whatever place these articulations proceed, the hearer thinks that the sound that he hears also comes from that same place.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 172-176].
atrāpi vyañjakadhvanibhedo bhrāntinimittam astīti samānam /	What is meant is that in the case in question also, there is ground for illusion, in the shape of the diversity of the manifesting articulations, so that the two cases stand on the same footing.
vyañjakadhvanyadhī [p.613] natvād iti /	‘Because it is dependent upon the manifesting articulations’;
śabdagrahaṇasyeti śeṣaḥ /	i.e. the Cognition of Sound is so dependent.
taddeśa iti dhvanideśaḥ /	‘That place’ the place where the articulation has appeared.
sa iti śabdaḥ /	‘That’ Sound.
yathā ca vyañjako dhvaniḥ śabdasya vicchinnādivibhramakāraṇaṃ bhavati tathāyojayannāha na cetyādi /	In what way the manifesting articulation becomes the cause of the illusion of interception is explained by the words ‘and articulations do not have the capacity, etc. etc.’;
asāviti śabdaḥ /	‘asau’ stands for the Sound;
śrutiḥ śabdasyeti śeṣaḥ /	‘the hearing’ of the Sound;
tatrati ākāśadeśe /	‘tatra’ in that part of Ākāśa,
apūritāntarālatvam dhvanibhir ityapekṣanīyam /	‘As the intervening spaces are not filled up’; what is meant is that they are not filled up by the articulations.
teṣāṃ ceti / dhvanīnām /	‘Teṣām’ stands for the articulations.
tecāyāntīti dhvanayaḥ //2211 2212 //2213 //2214 //	‘Te ca āyānti’ this also stands for the articulations.
nanu cādityasyāpyekasya sato deśavicchedena grahaṇam asiddham /	Says the Opponent It cannot be admitted that the single Sun is perceived as diverse because of the separateness of space (between the reflecting Media);
tathā hi cakṣuṣā pratipātraṃ pṛthakpṛthagbhinnānyeva sūryādipratibimbāniparicchidyante /	because what are actually apprehended by the Eye are so many diverse reflected images of the Sun;
na punarādityaḥ /	and it is not the Sun that is apprehended.
bhavatas tu pratibimbam arthāntaram anicchato 'pratibimbagrahaṇe na kiñcit kāraṇam utpaśyāma ityevaṃ manyamānasya parasya pratyavasthānamāśaṅkamāna āha āhetyādi /	For you, who do not regard the reflected image to be different from the object reflected, there can be no cause for the apprehension of several reflected images
āha kena nimittena pratipātraṃ pṛthakpṛthak /	This argument of the Opponent is what is referred to in the following;
āheti paraḥ / yugapattayeti /	[see verse 2215 above]: ‘Āha’ ‘says’ the Opponent.
yaugapadyena //	‘Simultaneously’ at one and the same time.
atrottaram āha atra brūma ityādi /	The answer to the above is as follows: [see verses 2216-2217 next]
atra brūmo yadā tāvajjale saureṇa tejasā / sphuratā cākṣuṣaṃ tejaḥ pratisrotaḥ pravartitam // svadeśam eva gṛhṇāti savitāramanekadhā /	“Our answer to this is as follows: what actually happens is that by the light from the sūn scintillating in the water, the light from the eye (striking the water) is turned back in the wake of the reflected solar light, and thus it perceives the sun in its own region, but there is an illusion of there being several suns of diverse forms, by reason of the diversity of the vessels of water.
bhinnamūrtir yathāpātraṃ tadāsyānekatā kutaḥ //	How then could there be multiplicity of suns?” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 180-182].
jaladeśasthena bhānavīyena tejasā prasyandanadharmaṇā cākṣuṣaṃ tejaḥ pratisrotaḥ pravartitam pratyagnītaṃ sat savitāram ādityaṃ svadeṣṭhameva gṛhṇāti /	The solar light in the vessel of Water which flows out makes the light of the Eyes turn back reflected backwards and hence, it apprehends the Sun in its own place.
yathāpātram yāvat pātram /	‘Yathāpātram’ as many as the number of vessels that are there.
ato bhinnamūrtiḥ pratibhātīti tadāsyānekatā kutaḥ, naiva, bhinnatvāccakṣur vṛtter iti bhāvaḥ //	It is for this reason that the Sun appears to be of diverse forms. How then can there be multiplicity of the Sun? It cannot be; because what is diverse is the functioning of the Eye.
cakṣur vṛttivaśād evābhinno 'pi bhinna iva gṛhyata iti darśayann āha īṣad ityādi / īṣatsaṃmīlite 'ṅgulyā yathā cakṣuṣi gṛhyate / pṛthageko 'pi bhinnatvāc cakṣur vṛttes tathaiva naḥ //	“When the eye is slightly pressed by the finger, even a single object is perceived as diverse, because of the diversity in the functioning of the eye. the same thing happens in the case in question also, according to us.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 182-183]. The following Text shows that it is by reason of the peculiar functioning of the Eye that the Sun, though really one, is perceived as several: [see verse 2218 above]
īṣat manāk /	‘Īṣat’ slightly, a little.
aṅgulyā cakṣuṣi nimīlite avaṣṭabdhe sati yathaiko 'pi padārthaḥ pṛthak nānā dṛśyate /	When the Eye is so pressed, even a single object is perceived as diverse many;
kutaḥ ---, cakṣur vṛtter bhinnatvāt /	why? because the functioning of the Eye has been diversified.
tathaiva no 'smākam eko 'pi śabdo bhinno gṛhīṣyata ityadoṣaḥ //	In the same manner, for us, the single Word-Sound would be heard as diverse (if there are adequate reasons for it).
[p.614] anye tviti / anye tu codayantyasya pratibimbodayaiṣiṇaḥ / sa evacet pratīyeta kasmānnopari dṛśyate // kūpādiṣu kuto 'dhastāt pratibimbād vinekṣaṇam / prāṅmukho darpaṇaṃ paśyan syāc ca pratyaṅmukaḥ katham //	“Other people who hold the view that the reflected image is actually produced (as something different from the reflected object) urge the following objection: ‘If the same sun is seen in the several vessels, why is not the same seen as being overhead (over one’s head, like the real sun)? how too could it be seen below, in wells and such other deep water-reservoirs, if the reflected image were not actually produced there? Further, how is it that when a man facing the east looks at the mirror, he perceives himself as facing the west?’” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 183-185].
jalādiṣu yathaiko 'pi nānātmā savitekṣyate ityasya hetuvyabhicāratvaviṣayatvenoktasyāsiddhi manyamānāḥ pratibimbam arthāntaram icchantaś codayanti /	It was argued (under Text 2210) that ‘just as in the Water, the single Sun is seen as diverse, etc. etc.’; and as invalidating this reason, some people think that the Reflected Image is something entirely different from the Reflected Object; and they argue as follows:
yadi sa evādityo dṛśyate na pratibimbaṃ, tat kimityupariṣṭādasya na darśanaṃ bhavati / evaṃ hi tasya darśanaṃ bhavet, yadi deśāvasthitasvarūpaṃ gṛṇhṇīyāt /	If what is seen (in the reflection), is the same Sun, and not the Reflected Image, then, how is it that it is not perceived as being overhead? It could be so seen if the same Sun had been seen in different places (in the reflecting surfaces) not otherwise;
anyathā hyatiprasaṅgaḥ syāt /	as otherwise there would be incongruities.
kiñca kūpādiṣu ca dūrādhaḥ saṃviṣṭasyārkādeḥ kathaṃ grahaṇaṃ bhavet / yadi tatra pratibimbaṃ notpannaṃ syāt /	Further, in the ease of the Well, how could there be perception of the Sun lying so far deep inside, if its Reflected Image were not produced there? Certainly the Sun does not actually exist there inside the Well.
api ca prāṅmukho darpaṇamavalokayan katham iva pratyaṅmukho bhavati / nahi tasya tadā pṛṣṭhābhimukhaṃ mukhamupajātaṃ dṛśyate //	Then again, when a man facing the East looks at the mirror, how does he come to face the West? Certainly a face is not seen to have been produced at his back.
apsūryetyādinā pravidhatte /	The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to the above is as follows: [see verses 2221-2223 next]
apsūryādarśināṃ nityaṃ dvedhā cakṣuḥ pravartate /	“When a man is looking at the sun and the water, his eye (rays) proceed in two ways, one upwards and the other downwards;
adhiṣṭhānānṛjusthatvān nātmā sūryaṃ prapadyate / pāramaparyārpitaṃ santam avāgvṛttyāvabudhyate //	the perceiver does not perceive that sun which is illumined by the eye-rays proceeding upwards, because it is not in a straight line with the bodily substratum of the visual organ;
ūrdhvavṛttiṃ tadekatvād avāgiva ca manyate / adhastādeva tenārkaḥ sāntarālaḥ pratīyate //	while what is perceived by the downward bays is the sun shining above presented mediately (indirectly); and because it is the same sun that is so presented, the observer thinks that what is seen is ‘below’.
evaṃ manyate ---m yadi bahir nirgatamindriyamādityaṃ bodhayet tata etat syād uparisthitam eva paśyennādhastāditi / yāvatā dharmadharmavaśīkṛte śarīre eva tadindriyaṃ grāhakamiṣyate, noparistham / yathoktam "tatraiva bodhayed arthaṃ bahir yātaṃ yadīndriyam /	The opinion entertained is as follows; If the organ were to go out and then render the Sun cognisable, then it would be necessary that it should be seen above, not below; what happens however is that the organ brings about the cognition while it is itself still in the body, and does not move upwards, as has been declared in the following words: ‘If the organ, going out, were to render the object cognisable there, then it might be as urged;
tata etad bhavedevaṃ śarīre tatva(cca---)bodhakam //" iti tathā hyayaṃ kramaḥ /	as a matter of fact, however, it brings about the cognition while still in the body’. (Ślokavārtika Eternality of Words, 185-186.)
ye hi jalapātre jalaṃ sūryaṃ ca paśyanti teṣām apsūryadarśinām ekam eva cakṣurūrdhvamadhaś ca dvidhā bhāgaśaḥ pravartate /	The whole process is as follows: Those who see, in the vessel, the Water as well as the Sun, for these persons looking at the Sun and the Water, the single Visual Organ (in the shape of Rays) proceeds in two ways one upward and the other downward;
tatrordhvambhāgaprakāśitamādityamātmā puruṣo na gṛhṇāti, kutaḥ---, adhiṣṭhānānṛjtthatvāt cakṣurindriyādhiṣṭhānasyārjavena tadānavasthitatvāt /	why? became it is not in a straight line with the substratum of the organ; the substratum of the Visual Organ in the body does not lie in a straight line with the Sun; but ‘mediately’ through an intervening medium the Sun is presented to the Visual Rays by the rays of the Sun, and hence becomes seen through the downward rays;
tathā hi kila saurvaṃ tejastejasvinaṃ vṛtter arpayati, vṛttiścakṣuṣaścakṣurātmana ityetat parāmparyārpaṇaṃ sūryasya tejasvina ityādityamūrdhvavṛttim uparisthaṃ ca tamādityamavāgiva adhaḥsthitam iva manyate //	so that what happens is that the Solar Rays present the luminous object to the Visual Rays, the Visual Rays present it to the Visual Organ, and the Visual Organ presents it to the perceiving observer. This is what is meant by the ‘mediate presentation’ of the luminous Sun. Thus it is that the Sun, shining above, is regarded by the observer as if it were below.
kaḥ ātmā /	Who regards it so? The observing person;
na punaradhasthādanya evādityaḥ, kutaḥ ---, tadekatvāt tasyādityasyābhinnatvāt / cakṣuṣa ityapare /	and it is not that there is another Sun shining below. Why is this so? Because it is the same; i.e. the Sun is one, not diverse. Others explain ‘tadekatvāt’ as ‘because the Visual Organ is one’.
tasmād anantariditenaiva cakṣuṣo vṛttivaśena sāntarālo 'dhastāt kūpādiṣu sūryo dṛśyate /	Thus it is under the influence of the downward rays of the Visual Organ, as functioning through a medium, that the Sun is seen below, in the Well;
jalādi pātrabhedāc ca /	so also in the case of the diverse vessels containing Water;
anyathā katham abhedena grahaṇaṃ syāt //2221 //	if it were not so, how could there be cognition of the Sun as one and the same? (2221-2223)
yaduktaṃ prāṅmukho darpaṇaṃ paśyannityādi / tatrāha evam ityādi / evaṃ prāgnatayā vṛttyā pratyagvṛttisamarpitam / buddhyamāno mukhaṃ bhrāntyā pratyagityavagacchati //	“Similarly (in the case of the man looking at the mirror), it is through illusion that the man cognises the face as facing the west, though in reality what he actually perceives is the pace as presented by the visual rays proceeding eastward to the rays proceeding westward.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 189-190].
prathamaṃ kila cakṣūraśmayo mukhamādāya nirgacchanti yāvadādarśādideśam, sā prāṅnatāvṛttirucyate /	The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to this is as follows: [see verse 2224 above] What happens is as follows: First of all the Visual Rays, taking up the face-image, issue forth till they reach the mirror;
sā ca prathyagvṛttiḥ /	these are spoken of as ‘proceeding eastward’;
tatra prāṅnatā vṛttir mukhaṃ pratyagvṛtterarpayati, pratyagvṛttiścātmanaḥ, tata ātmā pratyagvṛttisamarpitamagavacchanmukhaṃ bhrāntyā pratyaṅmukhaṃ yāsyāmīti manyate /	on striking the mirror-space, the said rays are turned back and come back to the man’s face standing there as before; this is spoken of as ‘proceeding westward’, the eastward rays thus present the face-image to the westward rays, and these latter present it to the Soul (the observer); thereupon the Soul, cognising the image as presented by the westward rays, has the illusion that he is facing the West.
cakṣur vṛtter vaicitryam eva bhrānter bījam iti bhāvaḥ //	The sense of all this is that the diversity of the functioning of the Eye is at the root of the illusion in question.
abhyupagamya pratibimbodayaṃ parihāram āha anekadeśavṛttau cetyādi /	Even granting that the Reflected Image is something different, produced in the reflecting medium, the Mīmāṃsaka, offers another explanation;
anekadeśavṛttau vā satyapi pratibimbake / samānabuddhigamyatvān nānātvaṃ naiva vidyate //	“Even granting that the reflected image really exists in the different places, there can be no plurality of these images, because they are all apprehended by the same cognition.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 190-191].
satyapi pratibimbe 'rthāntarabhūte naiva teṣāṃ pratibimbānāṃ nānātvam asti /	Even if the Reflected Image is something different, these images cannot be several;
kutaḥ samānabuddhigamyatvāt ekabuddhiparicchedyatvāt /	why? because they are apprehended by the same Cognition i.e. they all fall within the same idea.
tathā śabdasyāpyekabuddhigamyatvādekatvaṃ siddham //	In the same way, the Word-Sound also becomes established as one, because it is apprehended by a single Idea.
nanu kuto deśabhedena vedyamānasyāpi nānātvaṃ bhaviṣyati / nanu yaddeśabhedena vedyamānatvad bhinnatvaṃ siddhaṃ tat katham ekabudhyā bādhyata ity āha deśabhedenetyādi /	Says the Opponent When the images are actually perceived in diverse places, why should they not be several? That is to say, when the diversity of images is admitted on the ground of their being perceived in diverse places, how can this diversity be set aside by the single Cognition (by which they are all apprehended)?
deśabhedena bhinnatvam ityetaccānumānikam /	The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to this is as follows: [see verse 2226 above]
bādhaka iti /	‘It annuls the former’;
pratyakṣasya sarvapramāṇajyeṣṭhatvād iti bhāvaḥ //	because Perception is superior in authority to all means and forms of Cognition.
deśakālabhedena vedyamānatvasya vyabhicāritvād aprāmāṇyameveti pratipādayann āha paryāyeṇetyādi /	similarly the word-sound does not become diverse on account of the diversity of place.” [Ślokavārtika, eternality of words, 199-200].
[p.616]	[verse 2227]:
paryāyeṇa yathācaiko bhinnadeśān vrajannapi / devadatto na bhidyeta tathā śabdo na bhidyate // tathā śabdo na bhidyata iti / deśataḥ kālataścetyapekṣaṇīyam //	The following text points out that the idea that ‘it is cognised as appearing at diverse places’ is not concomitant with ‘diversity’, and hence there can be no validity attaching to it: [see verse 2227 above] ‘So the Word-Sound also does not differ’ ‘either in regard to time or to place’, this has to be added.
evaṃ deśavyabhicāramukhenobhayor api vyabhicāra uktaḥ / idānīṃ kālabhedavyabhicāradvāreṇa cobhayor api deśakālabhedenopalambhayor vyabhicāramāha jñātaikatva ityādi /	Thus, the non-concomitance between the two (Diversity of Place of Appearance and Diversity of Sound) has been indicated through spacial non-comcomitance; next, the Mīmāṃsaka proceeds to point out the nonconcomitance of the two cognitions, spacial and chronological, through chronological non-concomitance: [see verse 2228 above]
na bhinnakālabhedena tathā śabdo na deśataḥ //	[verse 2228]:
jñānamekatvaṃ pratyabhijñānādyasya sa tathā /	‘Jñātaikatvaḥ’ ‘whose unity is well known through Recognition’.
na deśata ityupalakṣaṇam, tathā kālato 'pi na bhinnaḥ /	this is by way of illustration; Sound does not become different on account of diversity of time either.
avirodhād ekavyabhicāramukhenānyatrāpi vyabhicārodbhāvanam //	By pointing one kind of non-concomitance, the other kinds of non-concomitance also become indicated.
paryāyetyādinā dṛṣṭāntasya vaiṣamyamāśaṅkate paryāyād avirodhaścedyāpitvādapi dṛśyatām /	“If it be argued that ‘(In the case of Devadatta) the idea of his being one is not incompatible (with the fact of his being seen at several times), because there is succession (in the several cognitions of his presence)’, then (in the case of word-sound also) please see that there is no incompatibility;
dṛṣṭasiddhyai hi yo dharmaḥ sarveṣāṃ so 'bhyupeyate //	in fact, the property that explains a perceptible fact may be accepted as belonging to all things.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 200-201].
tathā hi devadattasya yaddeśakālabhedenopalambhe 'pi na bhedas tatra paryāyo 'styavirodhakāraṇam śabde tu na kiñcid apītyato vaiṣamyaṃ dṛṣṭāntadārṣṭāntikayoḥ / atrāpyavirodhakāraṇam āha vyāpitvād api dṛśyatām iti /	The following Text anticipates and answers the objection that the Corroborative Instance cited (of Devadatta) is not quite relevant: [see verse 2229 above] The argument of the Opponent is as follows: ‘The fact that, even though Devadatta is seen in different places and at different times, he is not regarded as several, what makes this not-incompatible is the fact that the repeated seeings of Devadatta occur in succession, one after the other, and not simultaneously;
avirodha iti sambandhaḥ /	there is no such reason in the case of Sound.
dhvanīnāṃ cāpūritāntarālatvādityetad apiśabdena pūrvoktaṃ ca nirdiśati /	What the particle ‘api’, ‘also’, indicates is the reason mentioned before ‘because the articulations do not fill up the intervening space
kasmād vyāpitvam aṅgīkriyata ity āha dṛṣṭasiddhyai hīti / bhinneṣu digdeśeṣvabhinnasya śabdasya grahaṇasiddhyarthaṃ yo dharmo yujyate sa evānyathānupapattyāṅgīkriyate /	Question: Why do you accept the all-pervading character of the Word-Sound? Answer: ‘In fact, the property, etc. etc.’ For the purpose of explaining the idea of the same Sound being heard at several places and times, whatever property is found necessary is admitted through Presumption based upon the fact that a well-known fact cannot be otherwise explained;

katham idānīṃ saṃskāraśaktiviśeṣāvagatir ity āha buddhis tatra hi saṃhṛteti /

This is what is meant by the text. Question: How then is there the idea of the particular Capacity in the ‘Embellishment’?

pratyabhijñayā nityatvasya siddhatvāt / anyathanupapattyā tatra saṃskāraviśeṣe tu buddhir upasaṃhṛtā bhāṣyakāreṇa natu tadbhāvabhāvitāmātrataḥ saṃskāraśaktir anumīyata ity arthaḥ //

Answer: ‘There the Presumption has been allowed to rest.’ That is, Recognition having established the Eternality of the Word-Sound, the Presumption based upon the fact of the well-known phenomenon of Hearing not being otherwise explicable has been made by the author of the Bhāṣya (Śabara) to rest in the particular embellishment;

ubhayasaṃskārapakṣe yaduktam pratyekābhihitā doṣāḥ syur dvayor api saṃskṛ tāviti atrāha saṃskāradvayapakṣe tu vṛthā doṣadvayaṃ hi taditi /

and the capacity of this embellishment has not been inferred merely from the fact of concomitance (of the Embellishment and the Hearing). “As regards the view that there is embellishment of both, the assertion that it is open to both sets of objections is futile.

saṃskāradvayapakṣe tu vṛthā doṣadvayaṃ hi tat / yenānyataravaikalyāt sarvaiḥ śabdo na gamyate //

Because when sound is not heard by all, it is due to the deficiency in either one of the two.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 86-87].

[p.612] doṣadvayamubhayor api pakṣayor yatprāguktaṃ tat tu vṛthā anarthakam /

The assertion made previously that both sets of objections are applicable is futile, useless.

yasmāt /

Why?

anyatarasya śrotrasaṃskārasya (arthsaṃskārasya) vā vaikalyāt / na śabdo gamyate /

Because, to the deñciency in either one of the two of the embellishment of the Auditory Organ, or of the embellishment of the object, Sound is due the fact that Sound is not heard.

tathā hi satyapi śabdasaṃskāre badhirasya śrotrasaṃskāravaikalyān na śabdagrahaṇam / abadhirasyāpyanabhivyakteḥśabda(syā)grahaṇam /

For instance, even when the embellishment of the Sound is there, the deaf man does not hear the Sound, because his organ is deficient; and even when there is no deafness, if there is no manifestation of the Sound (by articulation), there is no hearing of the Sound.

kvacit pāṭho mṛṣā doṣadvaye vaca iti /

The reading in some places is ‘mṛṣā doṣadvaye vacaḥ’, the meaning of which is clear.

sa ca subodhaḥ //

and yet it does not make it many;

nanu ca yadi sarvagataḥ śabdaḥ katham asya ghaṭāder iva deśavicchede nānātvamupalabhyate / yāvatā sarvatra sadbhāvād avicchinnarūpeṇa sarvatrāvagatir yuktā /

Says the Opponent If the Word-Sound is all-pervading, how is it that it is perceived as several just like the Jar, when there is diversity of place? As a matter of fact, as it is all-pervading, it should be always perceived in an uninterrupted form.

naca sarvagatasya dūrāsannādibhedo yuktaḥ /

Nor should there be any distinctions of far and near in the case of what is all-pervading;

nāpyāgamaḥ kutaściddeśāt, tasya sarvatra sthitatvāt /

nor can it come in from any place, as it is always present everywhere.

nāpi nityasya dīrghahrasvamandataratamādisvabhāvabhedo yuktaḥ /

Further as it is eternal, there can be no such distinctions as long and short, or of various degrees of loudness and so forth.

kālabhedaśca na yuktaḥ /

Nor again is difference of time possible.

tasmād deśakālasvabhāvebhedena vedyamānatvād ghaṭādivadbhinno 'nityaś ca siddhaḥ śabda iti tat katham ucyate śabdotpatter niṣiddhatvād anyathānupapattitaḥ /

From all this it follows that because Sound is actually perceived as affected and diversified in place, time and form, therefore, like the Jar, it must be diverse and evanescent. How then is it that the assertion has been made above (under Text 2207) that) “Inasmuch as the idea of the production of Sound has been rejected, etc. etc.”?

iti // atrāha jalādiṣvityādi /

The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to the above is as follows: [see verse 2210 above]:

anena deśabhedena vedyamānatvasyānaikāntikatvam āha //

What is meant to be shown by this is that the fact of being perceived as diverse in different places, as a Reason for diversity, is ‘Inconclusive’.

vyañjakadhvanyadhīnatvāt taddeśe hi sa gṛhyate /

“Sound is heard in only a particular place, because it is dependent (for its cognition) upon the articulation that manifests it;

naca dhvanīnāṃ sāmarthyaṃ vyāptuṃ vyoma nirantaram // tena vicchinnarūpeṇa nāsau sarvatra gamyate /

and articulations have not the capacity to pervade the entire space; consequently, the word-sound is not heard continuously all over the world;

dhvanīnāṃ bhinnadeśatvāchrutis tatrānurudyate // apūritāntarālatvād vicchedaścāvasīyate / teṣāṃ cālpakadeśatvācchabde 'pyavibhutāmatiḥ //

and because the articulations appear in different places, the hearing is restricted to those places; and as the intervening spaces (between the articulations) are not filled up (by the articulation), there is the cognition of a break (in the continuity of the sound).

gatimadvegavatvābhyāṃ te cāyānti yato yataḥ / śrotā tatas tataḥ śabdamāyāntam eiva manyate //

Further, as these articulations have movement and a certain velocity, from whatever place these articulations proceed, the hearer thinks that the sound that he hears also comes from that same place.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 172-176].

atrāpi vyañjakadhvanibhedo bhrāntinimittam astīti samānam /

What is meant is that in the case in question also, there is ground for illusion, in the shape of the diversity of the manifesting articulations, so that the two cases stand on the same footing.

vyañjakadhvanyadhī [p.613] natvād iti /

‘Because it is dependent upon the manifesting articulations’;

śabdagrahaṇasyeti śeṣaḥ /

i.e. the Cognition of Sound is so dependent.

taddeśa iti dhvanideśaḥ /

‘That place’ the place where the articulation has appeared.

sa iti śabdaḥ /

‘That’ Sound.

yathā ca vyañjako dhvaniḥ śabdasya vicchinnādivibhramakāraṇaṃ bhavati tathāyojayannāha na cetyādi /

In what way the manifesting articulation becomes the cause of the illusion of interception is explained by the words ‘and articulations do not have the capacity, etc. etc.’;

asāviti śabdaḥ /

‘asau’ stands for the Sound;

śrutiḥ śabdasyeti śeṣaḥ /

‘the hearing’ of the Sound;

tatrati ākāśadeśe /

‘tatra’ in that part of Ākāśa,

apūritāntarālatvam dhvanibhir ityapekṣanīyam /

‘As the intervening spaces are not filled up’; what is meant is that they are not filled up by the articulations.

teṣāṃ ceti / dhvanīnām /

‘Teṣām’ stands for the articulations.

tecāyāntīti dhvanayaḥ //2211 2212 //2213 //2214 //

‘Te ca āyānti’ this also stands for the articulations.

nanu cādityasyāpyekasya sato deśavicchedena grahaṇam asiddham /

Says the Opponent It cannot be admitted that the single Sun is perceived as diverse because of the separateness of space (between the reflecting Media);

tathā hi cakṣuṣā pratipātraṃ pṛthakpṛthagbhinnānyeva sūryādipratibimbāniparicchidyante /

because what are actually apprehended by the Eye are so many diverse reflected images of the Sun;

na punarādityaḥ /

and it is not the Sun that is apprehended.

bhavatas tu pratibimbam arthāntaram anicchato 'pratibimbagrahaṇe na kiñcit kāraṇam utpaśyāma ityevaṃ manyamānasya parasya pratyavasthānamāśaṅkamāna āha āhetyādi /

For you, who do not regard the reflected image to be different from the object reflected, there can be no cause for the apprehension of several reflected images

āha kena nimittena pratipātraṃ pṛthakpṛthak /

This argument of the Opponent is what is referred to in the following;

āheti paraḥ / yugapattayeti /

[see verse 2215 above]: ‘Āha’ ‘says’ the Opponent.

yaugapadyena //

‘Simultaneously’ at one and the same time.

atrottaram āha atra brūma ityādi /

The answer to the above is as follows: [see verses 2216-2217 next]

atra brūmo yadā tāvajjale saureṇa tejasā / sphuratā cākṣuṣaṃ tejaḥ pratisrotaḥ pravartitam // svadeśam eva gṛhṇāti savitāramanekadhā /

“Our answer to this is as follows: what actually happens is that by the light from the sūn scintillating in the water, the light from the eye (striking the water) is turned back in the wake of the reflected solar light, and thus it perceives the sun in its own region, but there is an illusion of there being several suns of diverse forms, by reason of the diversity of the vessels of water.

bhinnamūrtir yathāpātraṃ tadāsyānekatā kutaḥ //

How then could there be multiplicity of suns?” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 180-182].

jaladeśasthena bhānavīyena tejasā prasyandanadharmaṇā cākṣuṣaṃ tejaḥ pratisrotaḥ pravartitam pratyagnītaṃ sat savitāram ādityaṃ svadeṣṭhameva gṛhṇāti /

The solar light in the vessel of Water which flows out makes the light of the Eyes turn back reflected backwards and hence, it apprehends the Sun in its own place.

yathāpātram yāvat pātram /

‘Yathāpātram’ as many as the number of vessels that are there.

ato bhinnamūrtiḥ pratibhātīti tadāsyānekatā kutaḥ, naiva, bhinnatvāccakṣur vṛtter iti bhāvaḥ //

It is for this reason that the Sun appears to be of diverse forms. How then can there be multiplicity of the Sun? It cannot be; because what is diverse is the functioning of the Eye.

cakṣur vṛttivaśād evābhinno 'pi bhinna iva gṛhyata iti darśayann āha īṣad ityādi / īṣatsaṃmīlite 'ṅgulyā yathā cakṣuṣi gṛhyate / pṛthageko 'pi bhinnatvāc cakṣur vṛttes tathaiva naḥ //

“When the eye is slightly pressed by the finger, even a single object is perceived as diverse, because of the diversity in the functioning of the eye. the same thing happens in the case in question also, according to us.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 182-183]. The following Text shows that it is by reason of the peculiar functioning of the Eye that the Sun, though really one, is perceived as several: [see verse 2218 above]

īṣat manāk /

‘Īṣat’ slightly, a little.

aṅgulyā cakṣuṣi nimīlite avaṣṭabdhe sati yathaiko 'pi padārthaḥ pṛthak nānā dṛśyate /

When the Eye is so pressed, even a single object is perceived as diverse many;

kutaḥ ---, cakṣur vṛtter bhinnatvāt /

why? because the functioning of the Eye has been diversified.

tathaiva no 'smākam eko 'pi śabdo bhinno gṛhīṣyata ityadoṣaḥ //

In the same manner, for us, the single Word-Sound would be heard as diverse (if there are adequate reasons for it).

[p.614] anye tviti / anye tu codayantyasya pratibimbodayaiṣiṇaḥ / sa evacet pratīyeta kasmānnopari dṛśyate // kūpādiṣu kuto 'dhastāt pratibimbād vinekṣaṇam / prāṅmukho darpaṇaṃ paśyan syāc ca pratyaṅmukaḥ katham //

“Other people who hold the view that the reflected image is actually produced (as something different from the reflected object) urge the following objection: ‘If the same sun is seen in the several vessels, why is not the same seen as being overhead (over one’s head, like the real sun)? how too could it be seen below, in wells and such other deep water-reservoirs, if the reflected image were not actually produced there? Further, how is it that when a man facing the east looks at the mirror, he perceives himself as facing the west?’” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 183-185].

jalādiṣu yathaiko 'pi nānātmā savitekṣyate ityasya hetuvyabhicāratvaviṣayatvenoktasyāsiddhi manyamānāḥ pratibimbam arthāntaram icchantaś codayanti /

It was argued (under Text 2210) that ‘just as in the Water, the single Sun is seen as diverse, etc. etc.’; and as invalidating this reason, some people think that the Reflected Image is something entirely different from the Reflected Object; and they argue as follows:

yadi sa evādityo dṛśyate na pratibimbaṃ, tat kimityupariṣṭādasya na darśanaṃ bhavati / evaṃ hi tasya darśanaṃ bhavet, yadi deśāvasthitasvarūpaṃ gṛṇhṇīyāt /

If what is seen (in the reflection), is the same Sun, and not the Reflected Image, then, how is it that it is not perceived as being overhead? It could be so seen if the same Sun had been seen in different places (in the reflecting surfaces) not otherwise;

anyathā hyatiprasaṅgaḥ syāt /

as otherwise there would be incongruities.

kiñca kūpādiṣu ca dūrādhaḥ saṃviṣṭasyārkādeḥ kathaṃ grahaṇaṃ bhavet / yadi tatra pratibimbaṃ notpannaṃ syāt /

Further, in the ease of the Well, how could there be perception of the Sun lying so far deep inside, if its Reflected Image were not produced there? Certainly the Sun does not actually exist there inside the Well.

api ca prāṅmukho darpaṇamavalokayan katham iva pratyaṅmukho bhavati / nahi tasya tadā pṛṣṭhābhimukhaṃ mukhamupajātaṃ dṛśyate //

Then again, when a man facing the East looks at the mirror, how does he come to face the West? Certainly a face is not seen to have been produced at his back.

apsūryetyādinā pravidhatte /

The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to the above is as follows: [see verses 2221-2223 next]

apsūryādarśināṃ nityaṃ dvedhā cakṣuḥ pravartate /

“When a man is looking at the sun and the water, his eye (rays) proceed in two ways, one upwards and the other downwards;

adhiṣṭhānānṛjusthatvān nātmā sūryaṃ prapadyate / pāramaparyārpitaṃ santam avāgvṛttyāvabudhyate //

the perceiver does not perceive that sun which is illumined by the eye-rays proceeding upwards, because it is not in a straight line with the bodily substratum of the visual organ;

ūrdhvavṛttiṃ tadekatvād avāgiva ca manyate / adhastādeva tenārkaḥ sāntarālaḥ pratīyate //

while what is perceived by the downward bays is the sun shining above presented mediately (indirectly); and because it is the same sun that is so presented, the observer thinks that what is seen is ‘below’.

evaṃ manyate ---m yadi bahir nirgatamindriyamādityaṃ bodhayet tata etat syād uparisthitam eva paśyennādhastāditi / yāvatā dharmadharmavaśīkṛte śarīre eva tadindriyaṃ grāhakamiṣyate, noparistham / yathoktam "tatraiva bodhayed arthaṃ bahir yātaṃ yadīndriyam /

The opinion entertained is as follows; If the organ were to go out and then render the Sun cognisable, then it would be necessary that it should be seen above, not below; what happens however is that the organ brings about the cognition while it is itself still in the body, and does not move upwards, as has been declared in the following words: ‘If the organ, going out, were to render the object cognisable there, then it might be as urged;

tata etad bhavedevaṃ śarīre tatva(cca---)bodhakam //" iti tathā hyayaṃ kramaḥ /

as a matter of fact, however, it brings about the cognition while still in the body’. (Ślokavārtika Eternality of Words, 185-186.)

ye hi jalapātre jalaṃ sūryaṃ ca paśyanti teṣām apsūryadarśinām ekam eva cakṣurūrdhvamadhaś ca dvidhā bhāgaśaḥ pravartate /

The whole process is as follows: Those who see, in the vessel, the Water as well as the Sun, for these persons looking at the Sun and the Water, the single Visual Organ (in the shape of Rays) proceeds in two ways one upward and the other downward;

tatrordhvambhāgaprakāśitamādityamātmā puruṣo na gṛhṇāti, kutaḥ---, adhiṣṭhānānṛjtthatvāt cakṣurindriyādhiṣṭhānasyārjavena tadānavasthitatvāt /

why? became it is not in a straight line with the substratum of the organ; the substratum of the Visual Organ in the body does not lie in a straight line with the Sun; but ‘mediately’ through an intervening medium the Sun is presented to the Visual Rays by the rays of the Sun, and hence becomes seen through the downward rays;

tathā hi kila saurvaṃ tejastejasvinaṃ vṛtter arpayati, vṛttiścakṣuṣaścakṣurātmana ityetat parāmparyārpaṇaṃ sūryasya tejasvina ityādityamūrdhvavṛttim uparisthaṃ ca tamādityamavāgiva adhaḥsthitam iva manyate //

so that what happens is that the Solar Rays present the luminous object to the Visual Rays, the Visual Rays present it to the Visual Organ, and the Visual Organ presents it to the perceiving observer. This is what is meant by the ‘mediate presentation’ of the luminous Sun. Thus it is that the Sun, shining above, is regarded by the observer as if it were below.

kaḥ ātmā /

Who regards it so? The observing person;

na punaradhasthādanya evādityaḥ, kutaḥ ---, tadekatvāt tasyādityasyābhinnatvāt / cakṣuṣa ityapare /

and it is not that there is another Sun shining below. Why is this so? Because it is the same; i.e. the Sun is one, not diverse. Others explain ‘tadekatvāt’ as ‘because the Visual Organ is one’.

tasmād anantariditenaiva cakṣuṣo vṛttivaśena sāntarālo 'dhastāt kūpādiṣu sūryo dṛśyate /

Thus it is under the influence of the downward rays of the Visual Organ, as functioning through a medium, that the Sun is seen below, in the Well;

jalādi pātrabhedāc ca /

so also in the case of the diverse vessels containing Water;

anyathā katham abhedena grahaṇaṃ syāt //2221 //

if it were not so, how could there be cognition of the Sun as one and the same? (2221-2223)

yaduktaṃ prāṅmukho darpaṇaṃ paśyannityādi / tatrāha evam ityādi / evaṃ prāgnatayā vṛttyā pratyagvṛttisamarpitam / buddhyamāno mukhaṃ bhrāntyā pratyagityavagacchati //

“Similarly (in the case of the man looking at the mirror), it is through illusion that the man cognises the face as facing the west, though in reality what he actually perceives is the pace as presented by the visual rays proceeding eastward to the rays proceeding westward.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 189-190].

prathamaṃ kila cakṣūraśmayo mukhamādāya nirgacchanti yāvadādarśādideśam, sā prāṅnatāvṛttirucyate /

The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to this is as follows: [see verse 2224 above] What happens is as follows: First of all the Visual Rays, taking up the face-image, issue forth till they reach the mirror;

sā ca prathyagvṛttiḥ /

these are spoken of as ‘proceeding eastward’;

tatra prāṅnatā vṛttir mukhaṃ pratyagvṛtterarpayati, pratyagvṛttiścātmanaḥ, tata ātmā pratyagvṛttisamarpitamagavacchanmukhaṃ bhrāntyā pratyaṅmukhaṃ yāsyāmīti manyate /

on striking the mirror-space, the said rays are turned back and come back to the man’s face standing there as before; this is spoken of as ‘proceeding westward’, the eastward rays thus present the face-image to the westward rays, and these latter present it to the Soul (the observer); thereupon the Soul, cognising the image as presented by the westward rays, has the illusion that he is facing the West.

cakṣur vṛtter vaicitryam eva bhrānter bījam iti bhāvaḥ //

The sense of all this is that the diversity of the functioning of the Eye is at the root of the illusion in question.

abhyupagamya pratibimbodayaṃ parihāram āha anekadeśavṛttau cetyādi /

Even granting that the Reflected Image is something different, produced in the reflecting medium, the Mīmāṃsaka, offers another explanation;

anekadeśavṛttau vā satyapi pratibimbake / samānabuddhigamyatvān nānātvaṃ naiva vidyate //

“Even granting that the reflected image really exists in the different places, there can be no plurality of these images, because they are all apprehended by the same cognition.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words 190-191].

satyapi pratibimbe 'rthāntarabhūte naiva teṣāṃ pratibimbānāṃ nānātvam asti /

Even if the Reflected Image is something different, these images cannot be several;

kutaḥ samānabuddhigamyatvāt ekabuddhiparicchedyatvāt /

why? because they are apprehended by the same Cognition i.e. they all fall within the same idea.

tathā śabdasyāpyekabuddhigamyatvādekatvaṃ siddham //

In the same way, the Word-Sound also becomes established as one, because it is apprehended by a single Idea.

nanu kuto deśabhedena vedyamānasyāpi nānātvaṃ bhaviṣyati / nanu yaddeśabhedena vedyamānatvad bhinnatvaṃ siddhaṃ tat katham ekabudhyā bādhyata ity āha deśabhedenetyādi /

Says the Opponent When the images are actually perceived in diverse places, why should they not be several? That is to say, when the diversity of images is admitted on the ground of their being perceived in diverse places, how can this diversity be set aside by the single Cognition (by which they are all apprehended)?

deśabhedena bhinnatvam ityetaccānumānikam /

The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to this is as follows: [see verse 2226 above]

bādhaka iti /

‘It annuls the former’;

pratyakṣasya sarvapramāṇajyeṣṭhatvād iti bhāvaḥ //

because Perception is superior in authority to all means and forms of Cognition.

deśakālabhedena vedyamānatvasya vyabhicāritvād aprāmāṇyameveti pratipādayann āha paryāyeṇetyādi /

similarly the word-sound does not become diverse on account of the diversity of place.” [Ślokavārtika, eternality of words, 199-200].

[p.616]

[verse 2227]:

paryāyeṇa yathācaiko bhinnadeśān vrajannapi / devadatto na bhidyeta tathā śabdo na bhidyate // tathā śabdo na bhidyata iti / deśataḥ kālataścetyapekṣaṇīyam //

The following text points out that the idea that ‘it is cognised as appearing at diverse places’ is not concomitant with ‘diversity’, and hence there can be no validity attaching to it: [see verse 2227 above] ‘So the Word-Sound also does not differ’ ‘either in regard to time or to place’, this has to be added.

evaṃ deśavyabhicāramukhenobhayor api vyabhicāra uktaḥ / idānīṃ kālabhedavyabhicāradvāreṇa cobhayor api deśakālabhedenopalambhayor vyabhicāramāha jñātaikatva ityādi /

Thus, the non-concomitance between the two (Diversity of Place of Appearance and Diversity of Sound) has been indicated through spacial non-comcomitance; next, the Mīmāṃsaka proceeds to point out the nonconcomitance of the two cognitions, spacial and chronological, through chronological non-concomitance: [see verse 2228 above]

na bhinnakālabhedena tathā śabdo na deśataḥ //

[verse 2228]:

jñānamekatvaṃ pratyabhijñānādyasya sa tathā /

‘Jñātaikatvaḥ’ ‘whose unity is well known through Recognition’.

na deśata ityupalakṣaṇam, tathā kālato 'pi na bhinnaḥ /

this is by way of illustration; Sound does not become different on account of diversity of time either.

avirodhād ekavyabhicāramukhenānyatrāpi vyabhicārodbhāvanam //

By pointing one kind of non-concomitance, the other kinds of non-concomitance also become indicated.

paryāyetyādinā dṛṣṭāntasya vaiṣamyamāśaṅkate paryāyād avirodhaścedyāpitvādapi dṛśyatām /

“If it be argued that ‘(In the case of Devadatta) the idea of his being one is not incompatible (with the fact of his being seen at several times), because there is succession (in the several cognitions of his presence)’, then (in the case of word-sound also) please see that there is no incompatibility;

dṛṣṭasiddhyai hi yo dharmaḥ sarveṣāṃ so 'bhyupeyate //

in fact, the property that explains a perceptible fact may be accepted as belonging to all things.” [Ślokavārtika eternality of words, 200-201].

tathā hi devadattasya yaddeśakālabhedenopalambhe 'pi na bhedas tatra paryāyo 'styavirodhakāraṇam śabde tu na kiñcid apītyato vaiṣamyaṃ dṛṣṭāntadārṣṭāntikayoḥ / atrāpyavirodhakāraṇam āha vyāpitvād api dṛśyatām iti /

The following Text anticipates and answers the objection that the Corroborative Instance cited (of Devadatta) is not quite relevant: [see verse 2229 above] The argument of the Opponent is as follows: ‘The fact that, even though Devadatta is seen in different places and at different times, he is not regarded as several, what makes this not-incompatible is the fact that the repeated seeings of Devadatta occur in succession, one after the other, and not simultaneously;

avirodha iti sambandhaḥ /

there is no such reason in the case of Sound.

dhvanīnāṃ cāpūritāntarālatvādityetad apiśabdena pūrvoktaṃ ca nirdiśati /

What the particle ‘api’, ‘also’, indicates is the reason mentioned before ‘because the articulations do not fill up the intervening space

kasmād vyāpitvam aṅgīkriyata ity āha dṛṣṭasiddhyai hīti / bhinneṣu digdeśeṣvabhinnasya śabdasya grahaṇasiddhyarthaṃ yo dharmo yujyate sa evānyathānupapattyāṅgīkriyate /

Question: Why do you accept the all-pervading character of the Word-Sound? Answer: ‘In fact, the property, etc. etc.’ For the purpose of explaining the idea of the same Sound being heard at several places and times, whatever property is found necessary is admitted through Presumption based upon the fact that a well-known fact cannot be otherwise explained;