Verse 2622-2623

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

विवक्षावर्त्तिनाऽर्थेन कार्यकारणतात्मकः ।
शब्दानामेष सम्बन्धः समये सति जायते ॥ २६२२ ॥
तेन सामयिकः प्रोक्तस्तेन च द्योतनादतः ।
समयोऽप्युच्यते तेषां सम्बन्धो नतु मुख्यतः ॥ २६२३ ॥

vivakṣāvarttinā'rthena kāryakāraṇatātmakaḥ |
śabdānāmeṣa sambandhaḥ samaye sati jāyate || 2622 ||
tena sāmayikaḥ proktastena ca dyotanādataḥ |
samayo'pyucyate teṣāṃ sambandho natu mukhyataḥ || 2623 ||

It is only when the convention is there that there comes about the causal relationship of the word with the object varying with the speaker’s intentions. It is on this account that it has been declared to be ‘due to convention’; and inasmuch as it is manifested by convention, the said relationship comes to be spoken of as ‘convention’ itself,—but not directly, (only figuratively).—(2622-2623)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Question:—“If, as just explained, the causal relation of the Word is only with such form of the Object as varies with the speaker’s ‘desire to speak’,—then, how is it that in several places, great teachers have declared the relationship of the Word to consist in the Convention itself,—or to be based upon Convention?”

Answer:—[see verses 2622-2623 above]:

‘Sāmayika’, ‘conventional’, is that which comes about—is present—when the ‘Samaya’—Convention—is present in the mind of the hearer. The term is formed from the noun ‘samaya’ with the nominal affix ‘Ṭhañ’, Though this affix has been ordained as to be used in the sense of mere presence, yet, in reality, there being no difference between presence and coming into existence, in the present instance, it is the latter that is meant.

The Convention itself is present in the subjective ‘chain’ of the Speaker; and as the said relationship is manifested by that, the relationship comes to be spoken of as ‘Convention’ itself; but only figuratively. And it is not always present every time that the Word is used, as it appears only at certain times.—(2622-2623)