Original
सांशत्वेऽपि यथा वर्णाः क्रमेण प्रतिपादकाः ।
स्फोटांशा अपि किं नैवं किमदृष्टाः प्रकल्पिताः ॥ २७१५ ॥sāṃśatve’pi yathā varṇāḥ krameṇa pratipādakāḥ |
sphoṭāṃśā api kiṃ naivaṃ kimadṛṣṭāḥ prakalpitāḥ || 2715 ||Even if the sphoṭa is with parts (divisible), as the letters expressing them would do so only in succession, why should not the sphoṭa-parts also be likewise? Why should unseen ones be assumed?—(2715)
Kamalaśīla
The following Text points out objections against the view that the Sphoṭa is with parts (divisible)—[see verse 2715 above]
Would each one of the Sphoṭa-parts be without meaning (inexpressive) or with meaning (expressive)?—If the former, then, as those parts would be appearing in succession, the whole Sphoṭa—like Letters—would be inexpressive. Its expressiveness might be assumed; as there would be attributing a form to a thing which does not have that form. Because the expressive sentence is said to have one form only, and its components are inexpressive; hence the expressive character of these latter could be only assumed—or figurative,—like the character of the Lion attributed to the Boy. The expressiveness thus being assumed, it is far better to regard the component letters themselves as expressive,—rather than assume the unseen Sphoṭa-parts, to no purpose.
If on the other hand the Sphoṭa-parts are expressive (the second view)—then there can be no need for several assumptions; because the ‘Sentence’ is described as a group of words conveying one complete idea; if each part of the sentence were expressive, then there would be as many ‘sentences’ as those parts, and not one ‘Sentence’ composed of several component parts. And when the meaning of one of these parts would be comprehended, there would be comprehension of the meaning of the whole sentence. This has been thus declared—‘If each of the parts were expressive, the assuming of several such would be futile; because the comprehension of the meaning of one part would bring about the comprehension of the meaning of the whole sentence—(2715)