Verse 2619

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

साक्षाच्छब्दा न बाह्यार्थप्रतिबन्धविवेकतः ।
गमयन्तीति च प्रोक्तं विवक्षासूचकास्त्वमी ॥ २६१९ ॥

sākṣācchabdā na bāhyārthapratibandhavivekataḥ |
gamayantīti ca proktaṃ vivakṣāsūcakāstvamī || 2619 ||

It has been already explained that words do not bring about the cognition of things directly,—because there is no invariable concomitance between words and external things; all that the words do is to indicate the presence (in the speaker) of the desire to speak (of things).—(2619)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued by the Mīmāṃsaka, under Text 2252, that—“For these reasons the relationship between the Word and its meaning is declared to be eternal”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 2619 above]:

As a matter of fact, there is no real connection between the Word and the thing expressed by it,—which could be either eternal or non-eternal. Because it is not the external objects that words denote; as there is no invariable concomitance between them; as has been previously explained under the chapter on ‘Word’. And if words were to denote things without such concomitance, then there would be incongruities.

Question:—“If that is so, then what is it that the words express”?

Answer:—‘All that the words do, etc. etc.’—this ‘desire to speak’ also, they point to, not as something denoted, by them; they only serve as signs indicative of it. That is why they have been spoken of as ‘indicating’ the Desire to Speak. What happens is that when the Word is uttered, there appears a ‘conception’ envisaging the object, and not envisaging the Desire to Speak; and what is not envisaged by the Word when heard,—how can that be regarded as ‘denoted’ by it?—(2619)

Question:—“If that is so, then what is the connection between the words and the said Desire to Speak,—by virtue of which they could serve to indicate that Desire?”

Answer:—[see verse 2620 next]