Slokavartika a Study

SR No.: 001133
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: K K Dixit, Nagin J Shah, Dalsukh Malvania
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1983
Total Pages: 132
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, Nyay, Tattvartha Sutra, & Tattvarth
File Size: 11 MB

Page 34

Verbal Testitmony
25
149). His central contention against it is that it goes against both the popular usage and a scriptural statement, for people understand by an auditory sense-organ a standing possession of a body and not something that is created temporarily (as the refinement, in question certainly is) (vv.133-34, 141-42) while there is a scriptural statement to the effet'that sense-organs make their appearance in an organism while it is yet in the mother's womb (vv.137-38). In the end Kumārila advises these Mimāṁsakas that if they are so insistent on discarding the Nyāya-Vaišașika view they should rather say that the auditory sense-organ is not of the form of sky but of the form of dik (direction); for there is a scriptural statement to the affect that a dead man's auditory sense-organ goes back to dik just as his visual sense-organ goes back to the sun, a statement implying that the auditory sepse-organ is of the form of dik just as the visual sense-organ is of the form of fire (vv. 149–52). Kumārila next considers the argument that a word is a produced entity because we often say "Please produce a word (Skt. Sabdam kuru), (vv. 157-60). In retort he remarks: “But we also often say "Please produce cow dung' (a literal paraphrase of the Sanskrit expression gomayan kuru meaning, please gather together the cow-dung). Nay, we even say, 'please produce sky' (a literal paraphrase of the Sanskrit expression akasar kuru meaning *Please make room'. His point is that the statements in question are all a figurative usage. Then is considered the objection that a word is not a single entity because it is simultaneously heard by different persons at different places, Kumārila's reply is that persons located at different places feel that the sun exists just over their head and yet at that time the sun actually exists at some one single place; his point is that a word is one single entity just as at one time the sun exists at some one single place (vv.163-69). The opponent says that in the case of the sun mistake is possible because a person located at one place does not know that persons located at other places too find the sun to be existing just over their head but that no such mistake should be possible in the case of a word (v. 170); Kumārila replies that even in the latter case mistake is possible because even if impartite and ubiquitous a word is made manifest only in those places where a dhvani is available in the form of a manifesting agent and the persons hearing this word at these different places might not be knowing all this (vv. 170-73). (In this connection Kumārila also shows how the illusory perception of sun as located at different places takes place in the case of one single person (vv. 178-90). He says that this happens when the sun is perceived as reflected in different water-filled pots. But the discussion is derailed because it has taken the form of a controversy between those who feel that the case in question is a case of illusory perception of the sun and those who feel that it is a case of genuine perception of the reflections of the sun). Kumārila next considers the objection that a word is not eternal because there are cases when one word is transformed into another; e.g. in the word - cojunction dadhi+atra=dadh yatra the letter i is transformed into the letter y. His answer is that the opponent has sitaply misconceived what has