Verse 2249-2251

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

अर्थवान्क(तरः) शब्दः श्रोतुर्वक्रा च कथ्यताम् ।
यदा पूर्वश्रुतः शब्दो नासौ शक्नोति भाषितुम् ॥ २२४९ ॥
न तावदर्थवन्तं स ब्रवीति सदृशं वदेत् ।
नार्थवत्सदृशः शब्दः श्रोतुस्तत्रोपपद्यते ॥ २२५० ॥
अर्थवद्ग्रहणाभावान्न चासावर्थवान्स्वयम् ।
वक्तुः श्रोतृत्ववेलायामेतदेव प्रसज्येत ॥ २२५१ ॥

arthavānka(taraḥ) śabdaḥ śroturvakrā ca kathyatām |
yadā pūrvaśrutaḥ śabdo nāsau śaknoti bhāṣitum || 2249 ||
na tāvadarthavantaṃ sa bravīti sadṛśaṃ vadet |
nārthavatsadṛśaḥ śabdaḥ śrotustatropapadyate || 2250 ||
arthavadgrahaṇābhāvānna cāsāvarthavānsvayam |
vaktuḥ śrotṛtvavelāyāmetadeva prasajyeta || 2251 ||

“Which word would it be which the speaker would speak of to the hearer, as being expressive of meaning,—when he is unable to utter the word that has been heard previously?—He cannot speak of the word as expressive. He might speak of it as similar; but, in that case, it would not be possible for the hearer to recognise it as similar to that expressive word; because he has never heard that original expressive word; while the new word that he hears is not expressive. And when the man who is a speaker now becomes the hearer at a later time, the same difficulties would appear.”—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 261-264].—(2249-2251).

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Speaker cannot speak of the previously heard Word, to the Hearer, because it has perished already; the Word that he does speak to him,—that he cannot prove to be expressive; because this Word has not yet had any connection set up in regard to itself.

It might be possible that he might speak of it as similar to the expressive Word.—But that also is not possible.—This is what is explained in the words—‘But in that case, etc. etc.’—What is desired in this connection is not similarity to anything, but similarity to the expressive Word; and that is not possible. If the Hearer had heard any expressive Word, then the similarity could be pointed out to him; as a matter of fact, however, the Hearer has not heard the expressive Word at the time that the Convention regarding its meaning was set up; hence what has been suggested is not possible.

It might be urged that the Word that is being spoken of to him by the Speaker might be expressive.

The answer to that is—‘The new Word that he hears is not expressive’;—the Word that is being uttered at the moment is not expressive; because no connection has been set up in relation to it; as has been already pointed out.

‘When the man who is the Speaker, etc. etc.’—What is meant by this is that when the present Speaker, in his return, becomes the Hearer,—then all these difficulties would affect him also,—i.e. all those difficulties just shown under Text 2250.

Thus then, for all Speakers, there can be no expressive Word at all;—this is the upshot of the whole argument.—(2249-2251)