Original
यथा महत्यां स्वातायां मृदि व्योम्नि महत्त्वधीः ।
अल्पायां वाऽल्पधीरेवमत्यन्ताकृतके मतिः ॥ २२३० ॥
तेनात्रैव परोपाधिशब्दवृत्तौ मतिभ्रमः ।
नच स्थूलत्वसूक्ष्मत्वे लक्ष्येते शब्दवर्तिनी ॥ २२३१ ॥
बुद्धितीव्रत्वमन्दत्वे महत्त्वाल्पत्वकल्पना ।
सा चे पटीव भवत्येव महातेजःप्रकाशिते ॥ २२३२ ॥
मन्दप्रकाशिते मन्दा घटादावपि सर्वदा ।
एवं दीर्घादयः सर्वे ध्वनिधर्मा इति स्थितम् ॥ २२३३ ॥yathā mahatyāṃ svātāyāṃ mṛdi vyomni mahattvadhīḥ |
alpāyāṃ vā’lpadhīrevamatyantākṛtake matiḥ || 2230 ||
tenātraiva paropādhiśabdavṛttau matibhramaḥ |
naca sthūlatvasūkṣmatve lakṣyete śabdavartinī || 2231 ||
buddhitīvratvamandatve mahattvālpatvakalpanā |
sā ce paṭīva bhavatyeva mahātejaḥprakāśite || 2232 ||
mandaprakāśite mandā ghaṭādāvapi sarvadā |
evaṃ dīrghādayaḥ sarve dhvanidharmā iti sthitam || 2233 ||“When a large pit is dug in the ground, there is a notion of the ākāśa in the pit being ‘large’, and when the pit is small, there is the notion of its being ‘small’; in the same way there are similar notions regarding sound, which also (like ākāśa) is not something produced; consequently, the illusory idea that people have regarding sound (being large, increased or small, decreased) is due to other circumstantial conditions; as a matter of fact, ‘largeness’ and ‘smallness’ are never perceived as residing in sound; and the assumption of the ‘largeness’ and ‘smallness’ (of sound) is due to the greater and less keenness of its perception (hearing). As regards perception, it is actually found to be very keen if the object perceived—the jar—is illumined by a large source of light,—but less keen when it is illumined by a small light.—From all this it follows that such properties as ‘length’, ‘shortness’ and the like really belong to the articulations.”—(2230-2233)
Kamalaśīla
The Mīmāṃsaka next proceeds to show that the Reason that ‘because Sound is cognised as having diverse characters, it must be diverse’ is also ‘Inconclusive’, ‘not true’:—[see verses 2230-2233 above]
The purport of all this is as follows:—If what the Opponent puts forward as his Reason is the diversity of such character as greater or less intensity (in the Sound),—then such a Reason cannot be ‘admissible’; because how could one, who holds Sound to be eternal, admit that the diversity of characters,—which, according to him, belong to other circumstantial conditions,—belong to the Sound?—If, on the other hand, what is adduced by the Opponent as his Reason is the Cognition that people have of Sound being more or less intensive, which Cognition cannot be possible without some difference in the character of the Sound,—then the Reason is ‘Inconclusive’; because when a large Pit is dug in the ground, there appears the Cognition of ‘largeness’ in the Ākāśa contained within the Pit,—even though the ‘largeness’ does not belong to the Ākāśa; in the same manner, in the case of Sound also,—which is absolutely causeless, not being produced at all,—the Cognition of greater or less intensity and the like would be due to the diversity in the articulations (that manifest the Sound),—even without the Sound itself having the said diverse characters.
This is what is said in the words—‘Consequently the illusory idea, etc. etc.’
Question:—How is it known that the said idea is due to other circumstantial conditions,—and the characters do not belong to Sound itself?
Answer;—‘Largeness and smallness, etc. etc.’.—What is meant by this is as follows:—The man attributes the greater or less intensity, which really belongs to the Perception, to the Sound, and thus falls into an illusion; and it is not possible for the Sound itself to be large or small; because it has been proved through Recognition that Sound is one only.
The following might be urged:—If there were no such diversity in the character of the object perceived, how could it appear in its Cognition?
The answer is—‘As regards Perception, it is found to be very keen, etc. etc.’—In the case of the Jar, even though there is no diversity of characters, yet its Perception is more or less keen, on account of the largeness or smallness of the Light illumining it;—in the same way, in the case of Sound also, the diversity of ‘Length’, ‘Shortness’ and the like is due to the diversity in the character of the articulation,—even though there is no such diversity of character in the Word-Sound itself.—(2230-2233)