Verse 2133-2135

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

कृत्रिमत्वे च सम्बन्धस्तत्प्रयोगापवर्जनात् ।
तदेकव्यक्तिनिष्ठत्वान्नैव सार्वत्रिको भवेत् ॥ २१३३ ॥
पार्थिवद्रव्यसत्त्वादिलाङ्गूलत्वादिसङ्करात् ।
विना प्रयोगभूयस्त्वं न स्याद्गोत्वावधारणा ॥ २१३४ ॥
तस्मादकृत्रिमः शब्दो न कदाचिद्विनश्यति ।
नित्येन नित्यसम्बन्धादाकाशपरमाणुवत् ॥ २१३५ ॥

kṛtrimatve ca sambandhastatprayogāpavarjanāt |
tadekavyaktiniṣṭhatvānnaiva sārvatriko bhavet || 2133 ||
pārthivadravyasattvādilāṅgūlatvādisaṅkarāt |
vinā prayogabhūyastvaṃ na syādgotvāvadhāraṇā || 2134 ||
tasmādakṛtrimaḥ śabdo na kadācidvinaśyati |
nityena nityasambandhādākāśaparamāṇuvat || 2135 ||

“If the relationship in question were artificial (set up for the occasion), then, as the particular use will have become accomplished and come to an end,—it would be applicable to that one particular case only, and would not be universal in its application. In the cow there is a commingling of several factors—such as the ‘earth’, ‘substance’, ‘being’, ‘tail’ and so forth,—there could be no definite idea of the ‘cow’ except through frequent repeated usage.—From this it follows that the word is not-artificial; and it never perishes,—because it has an eternal relationship with an eternal entity—like the ākāśa and the atom,”—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 359-361].—(2133-2135)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Again, the Mīmāṃsaka proceeds to show that the Proposition that ‘Words are non-eternal’ is annulled by Inference and Presumption.—The Inference that he sets forth is—“When the relation between two things is not-artificial (eternal), the two things themselves must be regarded as not-artificial (eternal) e.g. Ākāśa and the Atom;—and the relation of Denoter and Denoted between the Word and its denotation in the form of the ‘Universal’ is not-artificial;—hence this is a Reason based upon the nature of things.”

In the following Texts the Mīmāṃsaka proceeds to show that the Reason here adduced (that the relation between the Word and its Denotation is eternal) is not ‘inadmissible’:—[see verses 2133-2135 above]

The sense requires the reading ‘kṛtrimatve ca sambandhasya’.

If the Relationship were artificial, then,—inasmuch as the particular use will have been accomplished,—come to an end,—the Word would have come to an end; hence the relationship between the Word and its meaning would not be universal—i.e. applicable to all uses of the Word at all times.—Why?—Because it would he applicable to that one particular case only; i.e. it would apply to one particular Cow only. In support of this a Presumption is put forward—When several Cows are there before one. even though the Universal ‘Cow’ may be subsisting in a single individual Cow, what is understood is the universal ‘Cow’ as extracted from the word ‘Cow’; and this would not be possible if the Word were not there.—Why it would not be possible is explained in the Words—‘There is a commingling of several factors, etc. etc.’—This Presumption is based upon the authority of Words.

‘For these reasons Word cannot be artificial’.—This sums up the Inference.

‘With an eternal entity’—i.e. the object named ‘Universal’, ‘Community—‘Eternal relationship’—which lasts for all time; just like the relationship of Atoms with Ākāśa, which is eternal.—(2133-2135)

The following texts reject the ‘Inconclusiveness’ of the above Presumption:—[see verses 2136-2138 next]