Verse 2282-2283

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

नच क्रमाद्विना वर्णा निर्ज्ञाताः प्रतिपादकाः ।
क्रमस्यैवं पदत्वं च तस्मादेवं प्रसज्यते ॥ २२८२ ॥
पदं वर्णातिरिक्तं तु येषां स्यात्क्रमवर्जितम् ।
तेषामेवार्थवत्येषा शब्दनित्यत्वकल्पना ॥ २२८३ ॥

naca kramādvinā varṇā nirjñātāḥ pratipādakāḥ |
kramasyaivaṃ padatvaṃ ca tasmādevaṃ prasajyate || 2282 ||
padaṃ varṇātiriktaṃ tu yeṣāṃ syātkramavarjitam |
teṣāmevārthavatyeṣā śabdanityatvakalpanā || 2283 ||

“‘Words, without some order, have never been, known to be expressive; hence it is the order (or arrangement) which should be regarded as the word. for those people alone, according to whom the word is something different from the letters, and devoid of any order of sequence (or arrangement), can the assumption of the eternality of words have any use—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 282-283].—(2282-2283)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It might be urged that—the Letters themselves, without any order, as they become heard by the Ear, would express the meaning.

The Opponent’s answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 2282-2283 above]

The Letters themselves, without any order, have never been found to be expressive of meanings; hence a definite order or arrangement of Letters has got to be admitted. Under the circumstances, it is the order that comes to be the Word, and also expressive,—for you, Mīmāṃsakas; and all this character cannot belong to the Letters themselves.

This Order, however, is something non-eternal; hence what is expressive must also be non-eternal; hence the assumption of the eternality of Words is absolutely futile. Because what is desired by you is to prove the eternality of only that Word which is expressive,—not of any other; hence the proofs that you adduce in support of the Letters only are of no use in the matter under consideration; because the mere Letters are not expressive;—then as regards what is expressive, i.e. the order or arrangement of the Letters,—it is not regarded as eternal; hence all your effort is futile.

There are some people,—e.g. the Grammarians,—who regard the Sphoṭa, which is an impartite entity as a whole, apart from the Letters, to, be expressive;—for these people alone the assumption of the eternality of the Word can have any use; because the said entity ‘Spoṭa’ is eternal.—(2282-2283)

To the above arguments of the Opponent’, the Mīmāṃsaka offers the following reply:—[see verse 2284 next]