Vaisheshika-sutra with Commentary
by Nandalal Sinha | 1923 | 149,770 words | ISBN-13: 9789332869165
The Vaisheshika-sutra 2.2.30, English translation, including commentaries such as the Upaskara of Shankara Mishra, the Vivriti of Jayanarayana-Tarkapanchanana and the Bhashya of Chandrakanta. The Vaisheshika Sutras teaches the science freedom (moksha-shastra) and the various aspects of the soul (eg., it's nature, suffering and rebirth under the law of karma). This is sutra 0 (‘above continued’) contained in Chapter 2—Of the Five Bhutas, Time, and Space—of Book II (of substances).
Sūtra 2.2.30 (Above continued)
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 2.2.30:
अभिव्यक्तौ दोषात् ॥ २.२.३० ॥
abhivyaktau doṣāt || 2.2.30 ||
abhivyaktau—in (the theory of the) manifestation or revelation (of Sound); doṣāt—from defect; Because there will be a defect.
30. (Sound is not eternal), because the theory that it requires to be revealed only, will entail a defect.
Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:
(English rendering of Śaṅkara Miśra’s commentary called Upaskāra from the 15th century)
It may be argued, “It is the virtue of that which reveals, that it reveals in the form of intensity, softness, etc. And it is Air impelled by the drum and the drumstick, etc., which, being intense and soft or slow (in velocity and volume), produces like perceptions,” Hence he says:
[Read sūtra 2.2.30 above]
On the theory of the revelation of Sound, the defect will arise that (in each case) an invariable relation of the revealer and the revealed will have to be admitted in respect of things co-existent and capable of being perceived by the same sense. But the invariable relation-ship of the revealer and the revealed is nowhere observed of such things. If it be not assumed here, then it will follow that on the manifestation of one letter, say ka, all the letters will become manifest. The rejoinder that an invariable relation of the revealer and the revealed is in fact observed to obtain among the characteristic of being existent, the characteristic of being a man, and the characteristic of being a Brāh-mana, which are also co-extensive and are revealed by their individual difference, situation, and origin, is invalid. For they lack in being co-extensive, inasmuch as the extension of the characteristic of being a man, or of the characteristic of being a Brāhmaṇa, is not so large as that of the characteristic of being existent.—30.