Verse 1600-1601

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

अभिधा नान्यथा सिद्ध्येदिति वाचकशक्तताम् ।
अर्थापत्त्याऽवगम्यैव तदनन्यगतेः पुनः ॥ १६०० ॥
अर्थापत्त्यन्तरेणैव शब्दनित्यत्वनिश्चयः ।
अनित्यो हि न सङ्केतव्यवहारानुवृत्तिमान् ॥ १६०१ ॥

abhidhā nānyathā siddhyediti vācakaśaktatām |
arthāpattyā'vagamyaiva tadananyagateḥ punaḥ || 1600 ||
arthāpattyantareṇaiva śabdanityatvaniścayaḥ |
anityo hi na saṅketavyavahārānuvṛttimān || 1601 ||

“(6) Inasmuch as the denotation of a word cannot be otherwise defined, we assume the expressive potency of words; and as this potency would not be otherwise possible, we deduce, through another presumption, the eternality of words;—[ślokavārtika-arthāpatti, 6-7];—because what is non-eternal cannot be related to any contention.”—(1600-1601)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Texts describe the Presumption based upon Presumption:—[see verses 1600-1601 above]

‘Abhidhā’—Denotation; i.e. expressing of meaning.—This could not be done by words, could not be defined,—except through Expressive Potency;—having thus ‘presumed’ the expressive potency of Word, it is found that this potency would not be otherwise possible,—i.e. there is no other way of explaining such a Potency,—without recognising the eternality of words; so that this cognition of the eternality of words is also obtained by means of another Presumption.

Question:—“Why cannot there be Expressive Potency without eternality?”

Answer:—‘Because what is non-eternal, etc. etc.’,—That is to say, if what was perceived at the time of the making of the Convention does not continue to exist till the time of being used, then, the making of the Convention would be entirely futile; as Convention is set up only for purposes of usage; and the Word that is present at the time of usage is not one with which the connection of the meaning had been set up at the time of the Convention.

Or, the text may be explained in another way:—‘Tadananyagateḥ’—since, of the word existing at the time of usage, there is no difference from the word perceived at the time of the making of the Convention.—How is it known that there is no difference?—Answer—Because what is non-eternal, etc. etc.’—(1600-1601)