The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]
by Ganganatha Jha | 1937 | 699,812 words | ISBN-10: 8120800583 | ISBN-13: 9788120800588
This page contains verse 2252-2253 of the 8th-century Tattvasangraha (English translation) by Shantarakshita, including the commentary (Panjika) by Kamalashila: dealing with Indian philosophy from a Buddhist and non-Buddhist perspective. The Tattvasangraha (Tattvasamgraha) consists of 3646 Sanskrit verses; this is verse 2252-2253.
Verse 2252-2253
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:
तस्माच्छब्दार्थसम्बन्धो नित्य एवाभ्युपेयताम् ।
नतु सामयिको युक्तः सर्वथा तदसम्भवात् ॥ २२५२ ॥
स्वतो नैवास्ति शक्तत्वं वाच्यवाचकयोर्मिथः ।
प्रतीतिः समयात्पुंसां स्याच्चेदक्षिनिकोचवत् ॥ २२५३ ॥tasmācchabdārthasambandho nitya evābhyupeyatām |
natu sāmayiko yuktaḥ sarvathā tadasambhavāt || 2252 ||
svato naivāsti śaktatvaṃ vācyavācakayormithaḥ |
pratītiḥ samayātpuṃsāṃ syāccedakṣinikocavat || 2253 ||“For all these reasons, the connection between the word and its meaning should be accepted as eternal; it cannot be based upon convention; as that is not possible in any way.”—(2252)
‘The requisite capacity does not belong to the denoter (word) and the denoted (meaning), by themselves; the idea that people derive prom words is due to convention;—just as in the case of the winking of the eye.’—[Ślokavārtika-sambandhākṣepaparihāra, 12].—(2253)
Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):
[verse 2252]:
The following Text sums up the Mīmāṃsaka’s position;—[see verse 2252 above]
In the following Text, the Mīmāṃsaka sets forth the view opposed to his own—[see verse 2253 above]
[verse 2253]:
As between the Denotative Word and the Denoted meaning, there is no such capacity inherent in their very nature, by virtue of which one is denotative and the other denoted.
Question:—How then is any idea deduced from the Word?
Answer:—‘The idea that people, etc. etc’—When the causal potency of something is such that it stands in need of Convention, then that cannot be its natural potency or capacity;—for example, some idea is derived from the winking of the Eye;—the causal potency of the Word in bringing about the notion of its meaning is dependent upon Convention;—hence here we find something contrary to a wider term.
What the Opponent does here is to refute the objections that have been urged by the Mīmāṃsaka against the conclusion that ‘Words are not-eternal’.—(2253)
The answer to the above (from the Mīmāṃsaka) is as follows:—[see verses 2254-2255 next]