Verse 2183-2184

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

नावश्यं श्रोत्रमाकाशमस्माभिश्चाभ्युपेयते ।
नचानवयवं व्योम जैनसाङ्ख्यनिषेधतः ॥ २१८३ ॥
तेनाकाशैकदेशो वा यद्वा वस्त्वन्तरं भवेत् ।
कार्यार्थापत्तिगम्यं तच्छ्रोत्रं प्रतिनरं स्थितम् ॥ २१८४ ॥

nāvaśyaṃ śrotramākāśamasmābhiścābhyupeyate |
nacānavayavaṃ vyoma jainasāṅkhyaniṣedhataḥ || 2183 ||
tenākāśaikadeśo vā yadvā vastvantaraṃ bhavet |
kāryārthāpattigamyaṃ tacchrotraṃ pratinaraṃ sthitam || 2184 ||

“We do not necessarily accept the idea of the auditory organ consisting of ākāśa; nor can ākāśa be regarded as being without parts:—because such an idea has been negatived by the Jaina and the Sāṃkhya.—Consequently the auditory organ may be a part of ākāśa, or it may be a distinct entity by itself;—thus there is a separate auditory organ for each person,—which idea is based upon presumption due to the fact that well-known effects cannot be explained except on that basis.”—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 66-68].—(2183-2184)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Says the Opponent—Under the view that the Auditory Organ is Ākāśa, if there is embellishment of the organ, there are various objections against this as pointed out above—such as ‘Being all-pervasive, there would be equality of contact with all Sounds and all organs’ (Text 2161);—how then is it that the Author of the Bhāṣya (Śabara) has provided the Answer on the basis of the ‘embellishment of the Auditory Organ’?

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

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

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

Why?

‘Because such an idea has been negatived by the Jaina and the Sāṃkhya’,—The Jainas—the Ārhatas,—as well as the Sāṃkhyas have rejected that idea. It is not that the Mīmāṃsakas do not make use of the conclusions of other people; they accept anything that is found to follow from reason; if they did not do this, they would cease to be ‘Mīmāṃsakas’ (Rationalists). Consequently, even if they accepted the Jaina and Sāṃkhya idea of the Auditory Organ consisting of Ākāśa, they would be doing nothing objectionable. ‘Or it may be a distinct entity by itself’,—called the ‘Ear-drum’,

‘Presumption due, etc. etc.’—i.e. based upon the fact that the phenomenon of the hearing of Sound cannot be explained except on the basis of this idea.—(2183-2184)

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