"Since in regard to sounds such an irresistible instinct of recognition is always awake within us, it precludes by its superior evidence all the inferences to prove sound's non-eternity."
This at once refutes the argument given in the [Naiyáyika] treatise by Vágíśwara, entitled Mána-manohara, "sound is non-eternal from the fact of its being a special quality belonging to an organ of sense[273] (sc. the ear), just as colour is to the eye."
We can also refute it in the following ways: (a.) If we follow the [Sáṅkhya and Vedánta] view that sound is a substance, it is evidently overthrown[274] [as in that case sound cannot be a quality]; (b.) if we take it as referring to the noise, not the sound, we have no dispute, as it only establishes what we ourselves allow; and (c.) the inference is overthrown by the "limiting condition" [upádhi] of aśrávaṇatva, or "the not causing audition."[275] So Udayana tries at great length to establish that, although ether, the site of sound, is imperceptible, the non-existence of that which abides in this site is perceptible; and he then brings forward as an evidence for the non-eternity of sound, that sense perception which causes the use of such common expressions as "The tumult is stopped," "The sound has arisen."[276] But he is sufficiently answered[277] by our old reply [in p. 193], that the fallacious appearance of distinction arises from contrary characters being erroneously ascribed, just as, in the story, the demon Tála went away [as well as Betála] when the offering of blood was given to the latter.[278] And as for the objection raised by the author of the Nyáyabhúshaṇa,[279] that, if sound were eternal, the conclusion must follow that it would be either always perceptible or always imperceptible, this also is obviated by our allowing that we only perceive that sound which is manifested by our articulate noise.[280] And as for the (Naiyáyika) argument against the existence[281] of such a constant relation as this which is supposed between the manifested "sound" and the manifesting "noise," since they both come simultaneously in contact with the sense of hearing, this is invalid, as it will indisputably apply with equal force in the case of the soul.[282]
Therefore as the Veda is thus proved to have not originated from any personal author, and as the minutest germ of suspicion against it is thus absolutely destroyed, we hold it as satisfactorily demonstrated that it has a self-established authority in all matters relating to duty.
"Well"[283] [say our opponents], "let this question rest; but how about another well-known controversy? It is said—
"'The Sáṅkhyas hold that both authoritativeness and non-authoritativeness are self-proved; the followers of the Nyáya hold that both are proved by something else [as inference, &c.]; the Buddhists hold that the latter is self-proved and the former proved by something else; the teachers of the Veda maintain that authoritativeness is self-proved and non-authoritativeness proved by something else.' Now we ask, amidst all this discussion, how do the Mímáṃsakas accept as established their tenet that the authoritativeness of duty is self-proved? And what is the meaning of this so-called self-proved authoritativeness? Is it (a.) that authoritativeness springs from itself? or (b.) that it springs from the right knowledge in which it resides? or (c.) that it springs from the instrumental causes [as the eye, &c.] which produced the right knowledge in which it resides? or (d.) that it resides in a particular knowledge produced by the instrumental causes which produced the right knowledge?[284] or (e.) that it resides in a particular knowledge produced by the instrumental causes only which produced the right knowledge?
"(a.) It cannot be the first, because wherever the relation of cause and effect is found there must be a difference, and therefore these two cannot reside in the same subject [i.e., authoritativeness cannot cause itself]. (b.) It cannot be the second, because if knowledge, which is a quality, were the cause of authoritativeness, it would have to be a substance, as being an intimate cause.[285] (c.) It cannot be the third, because 'authoritativeness' cannot properly be 'produced' at all,[286] whether we call it a general characteristic (upádhi) or a species (játi);[287] for if we call it an upádhi, it is defined as the absolute non-existence of any contradiction to a certain kind of knowledge which does not possess the nature of recollection;[288] and this cannot be produced, for we all allow that absolute non-existence is eternal; and still less can we speak of its being produced, if we regard it as a species. (d.) Nor can it be the fourth, for wrong knowledge [as well as right knowledge] is a particular kind of knowledge, and the instrumental causes which produce the general are included in those which produce the particular,[289] just as the general idea 'seed,' as applied to 'tree,' is included in the particular seed of any special tree, as, e.g., the Dalbergia Sisu; otherwise we might suppose that the particular had no instrumental cause at all. Your definition would therefore extend too far [and include erroneous as well as true knowledge]; for non-authoritativeness, which Vedantists and most Mímáṃsakas allow to be produced by something external, must also be considered as residing in a particular knowledge [i.e., a wrong knowledge] produced [in part] by the instrumental causes which produced the right knowledge. (e.) As for your fifth view, we ask whether by being produced by the instrumental causes only which produced right knowledge, you mean to include or exclude the absence of a 'defect'? It cannot be the former alternative; because the followers of the Nyáya who hold that authoritativeness is proved by something external [as inference, &c.], would at once grant that authoritativeness is produced by the instrumental causes of knowledge combined with the absence of a 'defect.' Neither can it be the latter alternative; for, inasmuch as it is certain that the absence of a 'defect' is found combined with the various instrumental causes, this absence of a 'defect' is fixed as by adamantine glue to be a cause of right knowledge, since right knowledge will always accompany its presence, and be absent if it is absent,[290] and it will at the same time be not an unimportant condition.[291] If you object that non-existence (or absence) cannot be a cause, we reply by asking you whether non-existence can be an effect or not? If it cannot, then we should have to allow that cloth is eternal, as its "emergent non-existence" or destruction would be impossible. If it can be an effect, then why should it not be a cause also? So this rope binds you at both ends. This has also been said by Udayana [in his Kusumáñjali, i. 10]—
"'As existence, so too non-existence is held to be a cause as well as an effect.'
"The argument, in my opinion, runs as follows:—Right knowledge depends on some cause[292] other than the common causes of knowledge, from the very fact that, while it is an effect, it is also knowledge, just as wrong knowledge does.[293] Authoritativeness is known through something external to itself [e.g., inference], because doubt arises in regard to it in an unfamiliar case, as we also see in non-authoritativeness.
"Therefore, as we can prove that authoritativeness is both produced and recognised by means of something external, the Mímáṃsá tenet that 'authoritativeness is self-proved' is like a gourd overripe and rotten."