Verse 2264-2265

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

सम्बन्धाख्यानकाले च गोशब्दादावुदीरिते ।
केचित्सम्बन्धबुद्ध्याऽर्थं बुद्ध्यन्ते नापरे तथा ॥ २२६४ ॥
तत्र सम्बन्धनास्तित्वे सर्वोऽर्थं नावधारयेत् ।
अस्तित्वे सर्वबोधश्चेन्न कैश्चिदनुपग्रहात् ॥ २२६५ ॥

sambandhākhyānakāle ca gośabdādāvudīrite |
kecitsambandhabuddhyā'rthaṃ buddhyante nāpare tathā || 2264 ||
tatra sambandhanāstitve sarvo'rthaṃ nāvadhārayet |
astitve sarvabodhaścenna kaiścidanupagrahāt || 2265 ||

“At the time that the connection is asserted, if the word ‘cow’ is uttered, some people, being cognisant of the connection, comprehend the meaning,—while others do not do so, consequently, if, at any time, the connection were non-existent, no one would comprehend its meaning,—it may be argued that—‘if the connection were there, all men would comprehend it’.—But that is not possible; because (even though there) the connection may not be known to certain persons.”—[Ślokavārtika-sambandhākṣepaparihāra, 30-31].—(2264-2265)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following texts proceed to show that for the following reason also the notion of the Connection being made cannot be right, and consequently, the Connection must be eternal:—[see verses 2264-2265 above]

When some one says ‘This Cow should not be touched with the foot’, some people, having been cognisant of the Connection of Denoted and Denoter between the word and the particular animal, comprehend the object, through that Connection; while others who are not cognisant of the Connection comprehend only the verbal form, not its meaning. Such being the case, if the Connection were not a real entity, then all men, experienced in usage, would be unable to comprehend the meaning. Because the same thing cannot have the two mutually contradictory characters of being existent and nonexistent. From this it follows that the Connection must be there permanently.

Says the Opponent—‘If the Connection is always there, then how is it that all men do not have the comprehension of the meaning at all times?’

The Mīmāṃsaka anticipates this objection and supplies the detailed answer to it, in the words—‘If the Connection were there, etc. etc.’.—‘That is not possible, etc.’ sets aside the objection.

Why so?

‘Because the Connection may not be known to certain persons.’—(2264-2265)