Verse 2601-2605

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

व्यञ्जकध्वन्यधीनं च भवत्वस्योपलम्भनम् ।
यथाऽवस्थितरूपस्य किन्तु तस्य ग्रहो भवेत् ॥ २६०१ ॥
नान्यथा तद्ग्रहोऽयं स्यात्तद्रूपाप्रतिभासनात् ।
व्याप्ताशेषनभोभागो नहि शब्दः प्रकाशते ॥ २६०२ ॥
तद्ध्वनेर्भिन्नदेशत्वं श्रुतिः किमनुरुध्यते ।
व्यक्तस्तु प्रतिभासेत स्वात्मनैव घटादिवत् ॥ २६०३ ॥
सर्वं च प्रक्रियामात्रमिदमुक्तं च कारणम् ।
व्यञ्जकानामसामर्थ्यं व्यक्त्ययोगाच्च साधितम् ॥ २६०४ ॥
प्रत्यक्षस्तु स एवेति प्रत्ययः प्राग् निराकृतः ।
देशभेदेन भिन्नत्वमित्येतत्तदबाधितम् ॥ २६०५ ॥

vyañjakadhvanyadhīnaṃ ca bhavatvasyopalambhanam |
yathā'vasthitarūpasya kintu tasya graho bhavet || 2601 ||
nānyathā tadgraho'yaṃ syāttadrūpāpratibhāsanāt |
vyāptāśeṣanabhobhāgo nahi śabdaḥ prakāśate || 2602 ||
taddhvanerbhinnadeśatvaṃ śrutiḥ kimanurudhyate |
vyaktastu pratibhāseta svātmanaiva ghaṭādivat || 2603 ||
sarvaṃ ca prakriyāmātramidamuktaṃ ca kāraṇam |
vyañjakānāmasāmarthyaṃ vyaktyayogācca sādhitam || 2604 ||
pratyakṣastu sa eveti pratyayaḥ prāg nirākṛtaḥ |
deśabhedena bhinnatvamityetattadabādhitam || 2605 ||

It may be that the apprehension of the word-sound is dependent upon the manifesting articulations; but even so it could be apprehended only as it really exists; otherwise, the apprehension would not be of that sound at all; as its form would not figure in that apprehension. As a matter of fact, the word-sound is never apprehended as pervading over the whole ākāśa. Why then does the word-sound follow the diversity of place of the articulation? When manifested, it would appear by itself, like the jar and other things. All this about the cause has been said only by way of an elaboration of our argument. In reality the inefficiency of the manifesters has already been proved on the basis of the impossibility of manifestation.—As regards the directly perceptional notion that ‘this is the same word-sound’,—that has been already discarded; and it stands unrefuted that appearing in diverse places, the word-sound must be diverse.—(2601-2605)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued above, by the Mīmāṃsaka, under Text 2211, that—“Because it is dependent upon the manifesting articulations, therefore it is apprehended only at the place where they are, etc. etc.”

Though this idea has been already refuted, the author reverts to it, in order to point out that the view is open to objection even if there be a manifester for eternal things:—[see verses 2601-2605 above]:

If the apprehension of the Word-Sound is dependent upon manifesters, then, how is it that it is not apprehended as pervading the entire Ākāśa, wherein it pervades? Its apprehension must be in that form; otherwise there would be incongruities; all this has been explained before. And yet the Word-Sound is not heard throughout the entire Ākāśa; hence it cannot be right that the hearing of sound is in accordance with the manifesting articulation; in fact, the apprehension must follow that Word-Sound alone of which it is the apprehension. Thus alone could there be apprehension of the Word-Sound, not otherwise. Consequently like the Jar and other things, the Word-Sound should always appear in its entire form. Such in brief is the sense of the text.

‘Tat’—Therefore.—(2601-2605)