tādātmya technical_term

19 TRANSLATION [ Five alternatives in the relationship between sruti and svara ] Now the vikalpa⁴⁷ (option or alternative) about śrutis is being spoken of. The tādātmya 48 (identification of svara with śruti), vivartatva 49 (svara being the reflection of śruti), kāryatva 50 (svara being the kārya or effect of śruti), pariņāmitā⁵¹ (svara being the transformation of śruti) and also abhivyañjakatā⁵² (28) (svara being manifested by śruti) of śrutis is spoken of. Now he (the author) explains this itself— There is identification between svara and śruti i.e. both are identical just like jāti (species) and vyakti (individual or particular) because there is no differentia (viśeșa) between the two that are (equally) perceptible by the ear. (29) Just as the face of men is reflected in the mirror, similarly, svara manifests or (30) appears as reflected in the śrutis themselves. Some say that svaras are the kārya (effect) of śruti, just as the jar is the (31) 'effect' of the lump of clay and the rod (of the potter's wheel). Srutis undoubtedly get transformed into the form of svaras just as milk gets (32) totally transformed in the form of curd. The seven svaras beginning with sadja are always manifested by śrutis, just as the jar and the like located in darkness (are manifested), by the candle. (33) Thus, with this much I have spoken of the alternative (views) about śrutis. (34) Now I will speak about the refutation of (these) alternative (s). In general, the distinction of things having svalakşana 53 (distinctive feature) is siddha (evident or proved) like other things (that have their own distinction). That (thing) becomes (absurd or impossible) like nabhaḥ-puṣpa54 (a flower grown (35) in the sky) (when or if it is said to be) without differentia.

²¹ TRANSLATION The distinction of svara and śruti (exists) because they are prasādhya (lit. accomplished, here perceived) by different buddhis (apprehensions, perceptions). And also on account of the distinction of aśraya (seat or substratum, here śruti) and āśrayin (that which is seated, here svara) the identification (of the two) does not stand. (36) The state of svaras being reflections, that has been spoken of, does not stand reason (because) if the state of svaras being reflection (is accepted), then (37) perception having the nature of delusion becomes applicable. The relationship of cause and effect between śruti and svara is not possible; there is no pramana (means of valid knowledge or evidence) of the existence of (38) śrulis. (Objection) If by arthāpatti 55 (negative inference) or by the pramāņa presuming vyāpti-grahaņa, (the comprehension of concomitance, i.e. anumāna,56 inference) svara is proved to be the bheda (modification or result) of the gagana- gunas⁵⁷ (qualities of space or ether i.e. sounds) that are the progenitors of svara (then the kārya-kāraṇa relationship between the two would be established). (39) (Answer) It is true. Although the kārya-kāraņa difference (between svara and śruti) is evident, (40) yet the kāraņatva (causality) of śrutis is impossible. (This is so) because (here) the cause (śruti) is available (perceptible) (even) when the kāryas (svaras) are present, (but) when the jar and the like are (41) existent, the lump of clay is not available (perceptible). Pariņāma 58 (transformation) (and, or) abhivyakti (manifestation) is understood to be the justified proposition by the wise; thus the alternatives (42) starting with tādātmya have been spoken of by me.