Verse 2561-2562

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

यावांश्च कणभुङ्गकश्चन न्यायो नभोभागत्वदूषणे ।
दिग्भागेऽपि समस्तोऽसौ विज्ञेयो मतिशालिभिः ॥ २५६१ ॥
विषयस्यापि संस्कारे तेनैकस्यैव संस्कृतिः ।
नास्तत्वाच्छक्तिनियतेर्नातो विषयसंस्कृतिः ॥ २५६२ ॥

yāvāṃśca kaṇabhuṅgakaścana nyāyo nabhobhāgatvadūṣaṇe |
digbhāge'pi samasto'sau vijñeyo matiśālibhiḥ || 2561 ||
viṣayasyāpi saṃskāre tenaikasyaiva saṃskṛtiḥ |
nāstatvācchaktiniyaternāto viṣayasaṃskṛtiḥ || 2562 ||

All those reasons that go to invalidate the view that the auditory organ is part of ākāśa, should be understood by intelligent men to apply also to the view that it is part of space.—(2561)

The assertion that—“if the embellishment pertains to the object, it would affect that one object only”—cannot be right; because it has been discarded; also because the capacity of things is limited.—Hence there cannot be embellishment of the object.—(2562)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verse 2561]:

The objections against the view that the Auditory Organ consists of Space have been already stated before; hence they are not stated again; the Author only reminds the reader of what has been said before:—[see verse 2561 above]

It has been argued by the Mīmāṃsaka, in Text 2204, that—“Even if the Embellishment pertains to the Object, it would affect that one object only, etc. etc.”

The answer to this is as follows:—

[verse 2562]:

‘Na’—That is, it cannot be right to assert that “if the Embellishment pertains to the Object it would affect that one object only”.

“Why?”

‘Because it has been discarded’—i.e. because the Embellishment itself has been rejected.—That is, the Embellishment, as different and as not-different, has been already discarded.

For the following reason also there can be no Embellishment of the Object.

“What reason?”

Because of the limitations of the capacity of things.—which are going to be pointed out.

After ‘Niyateḥ’ a ‘Ca’ is understood; hence the meaning comes to be that—also because of the limitations of the capacity of things, there cannot be an Embellishment of the Object.—(2562)

The said ‘limitation on the capacity of things’ is illustrated—[see verses 2563-2564 next]