Verse 2304-2305

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

स्ववाक्यादिविरोधश्च शब्दानित्यत्वसाधने ।
प्रतिज्ञोच्चार्यते सर्वा साध्यार्थप्रतिपत्तये ॥ २३०४ ॥
नचानित्या ब्रवीत्येषा स्वार्थमित्युपपादितम् ।
तेनार्थप्रत्ययापन्नान्नित्यत्वान्नाशबाधनम् ॥ २३०५ ॥

svavākyādivirodhaśca śabdānityatvasādhane |
pratijñoccāryate sarvā sādhyārthapratipattaye || 2304 ||
nacānityā bravītyeṣā svārthamityupapāditam |
tenārthapratyayāpannānnityatvānnāśabādhanam || 2305 ||

“In seeking to prove the non-eternality of words, the other party incurs the odium of contradicting his own words? etc.; as a matter of pact, every proposition is asserted only for the purpose of bringing about the comprehension of what one desires to prove; and it has been explained that the non-eternal word cannot express its own meaning, consequently, as your own assertion expresses its meaning, it follows that it must be eternal; and thus there is rejection of the destructibility (non-eternality, of the word).”—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 313-314],—(2304-2305)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Mīmāṃsaka proceeds to point out that in denying the eternality of Words, the Opponent goes against (a) his own words, (b) against his own doctrine, (c) against scriptures, and (d) against common experience:—see verses 2304-2305 above]

‘His own words, etc.’—‘Etc.’ is meant to include the contradiction of his own accepted doctrines.

‘It has been explained’—Under the Text—‘A Word is not expressive if its connection with the meaning is not known’, (See Text 2234.)

‘Consequently, it follows, etc. etc.’—The ‘eternality’ follows from—is proved by—the comprehension of the meaning. That is, the eternality is proved by the fact of the ‘comprehension of meaning’ being otherwise inexplicable.—(2304-2305)