Verse 2513

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

शक्तिराधीयते श्रोत्रे यदि वाऽव्यतिरेकिणी ।
व्योम्नो दिशो वा नित्यत्वं ततो हीयेत जन्मतः ॥ २५१३ ॥

śaktirādhīyate śrotre yadi vā'vyatirekiṇī |
vyomno diśo vā nityatvaṃ tato hīyeta janmataḥ || 2513 ||

The potency that is produced in the auditory organ,—if it is something not different from the organ itself,—then that does away with the eternality of the ākāśa or of space; as it would be something produced.—(2513)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged—“It is not an inherent Potency that is inferred from the effect in the shape of Cognition; what happens is that it is an entirely new Potency that is produced in the Auditory Organ by the Articulations; and it is this Potency that is inferred from the Cognition; hence it is quite reasonable that the occasional Cognition becomes indicative of the Potency”. '

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 2513 above]

The Potency that is produced in the Auditory Organ—(1) is it of the nature of the Organ itself?—or (2) is it something different from it?—or (3) is it different-non-difîerent?—These are the three alternatives possible.

Under the first alternative, like the Potency itself, the Auditory Organ—whether it consists of Ākāśa or of Space,—also becomes non-eternal;—why?—‘as it would be something produced’;—i.e. because it is produced.

It might be argued that—“The view held is not that the Auditory Organ is non-difîerent from the Potency; but that the Potency is non-different from the Auditory Organ

Now, just look at this working of sheer blindness! When the naturo of one thing is tied up with that of the other, how can this latter be far removed from it at the same time? Because ‘non-difference’ between two things consists in the fusion of the natures of both into one. 'While the Milk remains at a distance from the Water, it does not become mingled with it; hence the explanation suggested is futile.—(2513)

The following Text shows that even if it be as suggested, the view remains open to objection:—[see verse 2514 next]