Verse 2244-2245

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

शब्दं तावदनुच्चार्य सम्बन्धकरणं नच ।
नचोच्चारितनष्टस्य सम्बन्धेन प्रयोजनम् ॥ २२४४ ॥
तेनासम्बन्धनष्टत्वात्पूर्वस्तावदनर्थकः ।
उत्तरोऽकृतसम्बन्धो विज्ञायेतार्थवान्कथम् ॥ २२४५ ॥

śabdaṃ tāvadanuccārya sambandhakaraṇaṃ naca |
nacoccāritanaṣṭasya sambandhena prayojanam || 2244 ||
tenāsambandhanaṣṭatvātpūrvastāvadanarthakaḥ |
uttaro'kṛtasambandho vijñāyetārthavānkatham || 2245 ||

“No connection can be set up without pronouncing the word; and when the word perishes as soon as it is pronounced, it can have no need for any connection. consequently, as the word will have perished and would not have had its connection set up, the first word must be inexpressive (meaningless); how then could the subsequent word also, which has had no connection set up, be recognised as expressive?”—[Śokavārtika—eternality of words, 256-258].—(2244-2245)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Having thus proved that Words are eternal, on the ground that otherwise they could not be expressive, the Mīmāṃsaka now proceeds to prove the same on the ground that otherwise no connection could be set up between the Word and its meaning:—[see verses 2244-2245 above]

First of all there is utterance of the Word,—then the setting up of its connection (with its denotation),—then its actual use, in practice;—such is the way in which Words are dealt with in actual practice. How could all this process be gone through if the Word perished immediately on being uttered, and as such how can it be open to any sequential operation? It is not only that for what has perished, no connection can be set up; there would not be any use in setting up any such connection; as it would not be present at the time of usage; and it is only for the purposes of use that Conventions (regarding words and their meanings) are set up.

The words ‘Consequently, etc. etc.’ sum up the conclusion; the compound ‘asambandhanaṣṭatvāt’ is to be explained as—‘because it would be asambandha—without its connection set up,—and because it would be naṣṭa—perished—the first word—that was there at the time of making the Convention,—must be inexpressive’.

It might be said that—‘the Word appearing at the time of usage would be expressive’.

The answer to that is—‘How then could the subsequent Word, etc. etc.’—(2244-2245)