Vaiśeṣika Sūtra 2.2.39

2.2.39

saṃkhyābhāvāt |

The word ‘tu’ cuts off connection with the context, and introduces the statement of an objection of the first party. The occupation or employment ‘of both,’ i.e., of the teacher and the pupil in teaching and learning respectively, is observed. “From its non-existence or absence,” i.e., from the entailment of its non-existence. For teaching is an act of gift or donation. The teacher makes a gift of the Veda to the pupil. If it is something constant or fixed, then a donation of it is possible. The second party may say, “A cow, and the like which are being given away, are perceived as standing between the donor and the donee; whereas the Veda, etc., are not perceived as lying between the teacher and the pupil. Therefore teaching cannot be a donation.” Our (i.e., the first party’s) reply is that they are perceived in the interval between the teacher and the pupil by the ear of a person standing there. Moreover, the eternality of Sound follows from recurrence also. As in “He sees the colour for five times,” the recurrence or persistency of colour which is constant or permanent is observed, so the recurrence or persistency of Sound in “The anuvāka or paragraph has been read ten times, twenty times,” is proof of the constancy or permanence of Sound. And constancy or steadiness being proved, since nothing is known which can destroy it, its eternality also is necessarily proved, on the principle “What will afterwards destroy it which is constant or lasting all this time?” This is the import.—33.