Verse 2310-2312

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

वक्तव्यं चैष कः शब्दो विनाशित्वेन साध्यते ।
त्रिगुणः पौद्गलो वाऽयमाकाशस्याथवा गुणः ॥ २३१० ॥
वर्णादन्योऽथ नादात्मा वायुरूपमवाचतम् ।
पदवाक्यात्मकः स्फोटः सारूप्यान्यनिवर्त्तने ॥ २३११ ॥
एतेषामस्त्वनित्यत्वं नास्माकं तेषु नित्यता ।
अप्रसिद्धविशेषत्वमाश्रयासिद्धहेतुता ॥ २३१२ ॥

vaktavyaṃ caiṣa kaḥ śabdo vināśitvena sādhyate |
triguṇaḥ paudgalo vā'yamākāśasyāthavā guṇaḥ || 2310 ||
varṇādanyo'tha nādātmā vāyurūpamavācatam |
padavākyātmakaḥ sphoṭaḥ sārūpyānyanivarttane || 2311 ||
eteṣāmastvanityatvaṃ nāsmākaṃ teṣu nityatā |
aprasiddhaviśeṣatvamāśrayāsiddhahetutā || 2312 ||

“It has to be explained what the ‘śabda’, ‘word-sound’, is which is being proved to be perishable.—(a) Is it the ‘aggregate of the three attributes’?—Or (b) something atomic?—Or (c) ‘a qaulity of ākāśa’?—Or (d) something in the form of mere sound, as apart from the letters? Or (e) something in the form of air [see notes below], not expressive (of meanings)? Or (f) ‘sphoṭa’ in the form of words and sentences? Or (g) mere ‘similarity’? Or (h) the ‘exclusion of others’?—All these may be non-eternal; according to us eternality does not belong to these.—Hence your reasoning is open to the defects of (1) having a ‘subject’ whose exact nature is not known or admitted, and (2) having a ‘probans’ which has no substratum (or basis)”,—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 318-321].—(2310-2312)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Mīmāṃsaka proceeds to point out the defects in the ‘Subject’ (Minor Term) and in the ‘Reasons’ (Probans) of the Reasoning put forward (by the Opponent)—[see verses 2310-2312 above]

The Texts sets forth the several views that have been held by various philosophers regarding the exact nature of ‘Śabda’ ‘Word-sound’ (in the present context).

(a) According to the Sāṃkhyas, ‘Śabda’ is held to be something consisting of the ‘Three Attributes’ of Harmony, Energy and Inertia.—(b) According to the Digambara (Jainas), it is something atomic;—‘pudgala’ is Atom; what pertains to the pudgala, is paudgala, ‘atomic’; i.e. consisting of the Atom.—(c) The followers of Kaṇāda hold it to be a ‘quality of Ākāśa—(d) According to the common people, it is something of the nature of mere Bound, as apart from the Letters; as has been declared in Patañjalūs Bhāṣya—‘Or, Śabda among men is known as sound whose meaning is well known’.—(e) According to the author of the Śikṣā, it is of the nature of Air, not expressive; as declared by them ‘The Air becomes the Śabda—(f) The Grammarians hold Śabda to consist of the Word-sphoṭa and Sentence-sphoṭa; as has been said by them—The sounds sow the seed in the Buddhi, along with the last articulation, and when this seed has developed by repetition, the Śabda becomes cognised’,—(g) According to Vindhyavāsin, Śabda consists in ‘similarity—(h) According to the Bauddhas what expresses the meaning consists in the ‘exclusion of others’, called ‘Āpoha of others’.

If what the Buddhist seeks to prove is the ‘non-eternality’ of these eight kinds of ‘Śabda’—as postulated by the Sāṅkhya and others,—then the ‘Subject’ becomes open to the defect of being futile, which is expressed in its own form; as such ‘Subject’ has been rejected by us. Nor do the Mīmāṃsakas wish to prove the eternality of such Śabda as these.

Further, any such ‘subject’ as Śabda in the particular forms of the Three-Attribute entity’ and the rest is not admitted or known, so far as we are concerned; hence the ‘subject’ becomes open to the charge of having its exact nature unknown. The Probans or Reason also, on that same account, becomes one whose substratum (in the shape of the Subject or Minor Term) is not admitted or known; and any such ‘subject’ is not admitted at all.—(2310-2312)

Note on verse 2311:

Text 2311 presents what may be regarded as a ‘literary curiosity’. Here we have a quotation from the Ślokāvartika—Chapter on Śabdanityātā, Śloka 319. Kamalaśila says, this represents the view of the Śikṣā that ‘the Śabda consists of Air and is inexpressive’; the reading in the quotation being ‘vāyurūpamavācakam’. The reading in the Ślokavārtika itself, however, is ‘vāyurūpo’rthavācakaḥ’, which makes the Śabda, ‘arthavācaka’, expressive of meaning. The Nyāyaratnākara says this is the view of the Śikṣā—One or the other—Tattvasaṅgraha and its Commentary on the one hand, and Ślokavārtika and its Commentary on the other, must be wrong; both cannot be right, as representing the view of the Śikṣā Pāṇini’s Śikṣā does not help to solve the riddle,—On the face of it, the reading adopted in the Tattvasangraha appears to be wrong; as the subject-matter of the whole discussion is the expressive Śabda, not that which is inexpressive.