Comments

Comm. NT: 33.
Rūpakkhandhakathāvaṇṇanā

33. “‘The sound base only’: here some say, ‘The consciousness-born is always intimative (saviññattika).’
The Ancients say, ‘There is sound due to the intervention (vipphāra) of applied thought that does not intimate.’
While depending on the word of the Great Commentary that puts it thus, ‘Intimatable (cognizable) through the ear by means of the sound due to applied thought’s intervention,’ still there is also need of the arising of consciousness-originated sound without intimation (cognition)
for because of the words, ‘For the intimation (cognition) is not due to intimating speech’ (?), it arises together with sound not intimatable (cognizable) through the ear. That being so, there would have to be a consciousness-born sound-ennead.
And that theory is rejected by Saṅghakaras who imagine that it is self-contradictory to say that there is sound not intimatable (cognizable) through the ear.
Others, however, do not reject the Great Commentary’s statement and they comment on its intention.
How?
[They say that] the non-intimation (non-cognition) through the ear of the sound activated due to applied thought’s intervention is stated in the Suttas with this intention, ‘He tells by hearing with the divine ear the subtle sound that is conascent with the intimation, originated by applied thought, and consisting in movement of the tongue and palate, and so on’ (cf. A I 171), and that in the Paṭṭhāna (Paṭṭh 1, 7) the state of object condition for ear-consciousness is stated with reference to gross sound” (Vism-mhṭ 460).

пали	Yaṃ pana cittato ca ututo ca jātaṃ, taṃ dvijaṃ nāma, taṃ saddāyatanameva.
Nyanamoli thera	But what is born [now] of consciousness and [now] of temperature is called born of two. That is the sound base only.33