Verse 2145-2146

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

द्वयसिद्धस्तु वर्णात्मा नित्यत्वादि यथैव च ।
कल्पितस्येष्यते तद्वत्सिद्धस्यैवाभ्युपेयताम् ॥ २१४५ ॥
तेनैकत्वेन वर्णस्य बुद्धिरेकोपजायते ।
विशेषबुद्धिसद्भावो भवेद्व्यञ्जकभेदतः ॥ २१४६ ॥

dvayasiddhastu varṇātmā nityatvādi yathaiva ca |
kalpitasyeṣyate tadvatsiddhasyaivābhyupeyatām || 2145 ||
tenaikatvena varṇasya buddhirekopajāyate |
viśeṣabuddhisadbhāvo bhavedvyañjakabhedataḥ || 2146 ||

“The entity in the form of the ‘letter’ is admitted by both parties; it is only right therefore that ‘eternality’ and other characters,—which are attributed to an assumed entity,—should be attributed to what is admitted by both parties. thus it follows that the one idea arises out of the one-ness of the letter. As regards the ideas of peculiar features, that would be due to the diversity in the character of the manifesting agency.”—(Ślokavārtika-sphoṭa, 18, 23].—(2145-2146)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged:—The argument adduced is superfluous, as addressed to the Buddhist. Because the idea of ‘oneness’ is held by him to be based upon ‘the exclusion of others’, and not upon any Universal in the shape of ‘Ga’ as apart from the Individuals; so that even when the Universal ‘Ga’ is denied as a distinct entity, the ‘one-ness’ of the Letter does not become established on the basis of the idea of ‘one-ness’,—as it is based upon the ‘exclusion of others’.

This objection is anticipated and answered (by the Mīmāṃsaka) in the following:—[see verses 2145-2146 above]

“Why is it that leaving aside the Letter itself,—which is admitted by both parties,—such characters as ‘eternality’, ‘multiplicity’, ‘pervasiveness’ and the rest are attributed to an assumed entity, in the shape of the ‘exclusion of others’,—as is clear from such assertions as ‘the class and the property thus become determined’? The right thing to do would be to attribute all these to what is admitted by both parties; as otherwise there would be the necessity of assuming much that is never perceived at all.—Hence it follows that the Recognition of the Letter as one and the same must be due to the one-ness of the Letter itself.”

Question;—If that is so, then how could there be such diverse notions regarding the Letter, as short, medium and loud?

Answer:—‘As regards, etc. etc.’—‘Manifesting agency’—consisting of the conjunctions and disjunctions of Air (proceeding from the throat of the speaker’.—(2145-2146)