Verse 2500

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

शब्दस्याग्राह्यतैवं स्यात्तस्मिन्ननुपयोगतः ।
तस्य नैवं रसादिभ्यो विशेषः कश्चनास्ति हि ॥ २५०० ॥

śabdasyāgrāhyataivaṃ syāttasminnanupayogataḥ |
tasya naivaṃ rasādibhyo viśeṣaḥ kaścanāsti hi || 2500 ||

In this way the word-sound would be uncognisable; as it would not be of any use in its own cognition, and, on that account, it would not be different from taste and other things (so far as having no bearing on the said cognition is concerned).—(2500)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Says the Opponent—“If the Word-Sound were held to be a cause of the production of the Cognition, then there might be some room for raising the question as to its being capable or not capable;—as it is, however, what is held to be the cause of the Cognition of the Word-Sound is the embellished Auditory Organ,—and not the Sound; hence there is no room for the objections that have been urged”.

The Author attacks the view directly and refutes it in the following:—[see verse 2500 above]

In this way, like Taste, etc., the Word-Sound also would have no bearing upon its Cognition; and this would mean that it is not cognisable by that Cognition.

This argument may be formulated as follows:—When a certain thing has no bearing upon a Cognition, it cannot be cognised by that Cognition;—e.g. Taste, etc. in regard to Auditory Cognition;—the Word-Sound has no bearing upon the Cognition of that Sound;—hence there is apprehension of something contrary to the wider condition.

The reason here adduced is not ‘Inconclusive’; because, if what has no bearing upon a Cognition were cognised by that Cognition,—there would be no restriction at all, and Taste might also become cognisable by Auditory Cognition.—(2500)