________________
1154
TATTVASANGRAKA : CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXTS (2495-2499).
“JUST AS THE LAMP BESTRICTS THE POTENCY OF THE EYE TO THE PER
CEPTION OF THE JAR, SO WILL THE ARTICULATION RESTRICT THE POTENCY OF THE AUDITORY ORGAN TO THE APPREHENSION OF THE SOUND".-IF, AS IT STANDS BY ITSELF, THE SOUND IS CAPABLE OF BEING APPREHENDED BY THE AUDITORY ORGAN, THEN WHY IS IT NOT APPREHENDED, WHILE THE AUDITORY ORGAN IS NOT EMBELLISH ED I-WHEN ITS EFFICIENT CAUSE IS THERE, THE APPREHENSION MUST FOLLOW ; AND THIS CONDITION IS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE EMBELLISHMENT OF THE AUDITORY ORGAN.-IF, ON THE OTHER KAND, THE SOUND IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING APPREHENDED, HOW COULD IT BECOME APPREHENDED EVEN AT A LATER TIME? IF THE APPREHENSION IS THERE, THEN WHAT IS APPREHENDED MUST BE SOME OTHER SOUND WHICH HAS THE REQUISITE CAPACITY. IF THEN, EVES AT A LATER TIME, THERE IS NO COGNITION (APPREHENSION) OF THE WORD-SOUND DUE TO ITS OWN INHERENT CAPACITY, THEN IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT IT IS ASSERTED THAT IT IS PRODUCED BY THE EMBELLISHED AUDITORY ORGAN AND OTHER AGENCIES. -(2495-2499)
COMMENTARY.
It may be that the Auditory Organ is embellished; but what you have to explain is-Whether or not the Word-Sound, by its very nature, is capable of bringing about the cognition of itself.
In the former case (i.e. if it is so capable), then it should be cognised even before the Auditory Organ has been embellished.
This is what is said in the words- why is it not apprehended, etc. etc. Tasya of the Word Sound. - Tat-therefore.
The argument may be formulated, as before, thus-'If its cause is deficient ate.'; and it may be added that in this case the embellishment of the Auditory Organ would be useless.
Under the latter view (that the Word-Sound by itself is not capable of bringing about its own cognition),-the Cognition of the Sound should not come about even when the embellishment of the Auditory Organ is there; because the Sound must, for ever, remain incapable of being cognised). So that under this view also, the embellishment of the Auditory Organ would be useless.
This argument may be formulated as follows :-When one thing does not deviate from the condition in which it was not able to produce a particular effect, it cannot produce that effect ;-as, for instance, the Kodrava-seed cannot produce the Paddy-sprout ;-and even on the embellishment of the Auditory Organ, the Word-sound does not deviato from the incapacity to produce Cognition - hence there is non-apprehension of the wider condition.
That the Reason here adduced is not inadmissible' is shown in the words- If the apprehension is there, etc. etc.