Verse 2627-2629

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

समयः प्रतिमर्त्यं च प्रत्युच्चारणमेव च ।
इत्याद्यतः परेणोक्तं परनीतिमजानता ॥ २६२७ ॥
समयो हि न सम्बन्धो नरधर्मतया तयोः ।
द्योतकः स तु तस्येति सम्बन्धः स्यान्न मुख्यतः ॥ २६२८ ॥
प्रत्युच्चारणमेनं च न परे प्रतिजानते ।
ईशादेः प्रतिषिद्धत्वात्सर्गादौ नच तत्कृतम् ॥ २६२९ ॥

samayaḥ pratimartyaṃ ca pratyuccāraṇameva ca |
ityādyataḥ pareṇoktaṃ paranītimajānatā || 2627 ||
samayo hi na sambandho naradharmatayā tayoḥ |
dyotakaḥ sa tu tasyeti sambandhaḥ syānna mukhyataḥ || 2628 ||
pratyuccāraṇamenaṃ ca na pare pratijānate |
īśādeḥ pratiṣiddhatvātsargādau naca tatkṛtam || 2629 ||

As regards the assertion that—“the convention being made for each mortal being, or for each utterance, etc. etc.”—has been made without knowledge of the view of the other party. As a matter of fact, the convention as constituting the relationship does not belong to the two factors (word and its meaning),—it belongs to the man; the only relationship between the two is that one serves to manifest (indicate) the other; and this relationship also is not direct.—Nor do the other party hold the convention to pertain to each utterance;—nor (according to them) is the convention made by god, or any other being, at the beginning of creation; as the idea of such beings has been already rejected.—(2627-2629)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Mīmāṃsaka has raised the objection against the view that the Relationship consists of the Convention, under Text 2254,—to the effect that—“Is this Convention made for each mortal being or for each utterance of the Word? and so forth”.

It is pointed out in the following texts that this argument is entirely ‘futile’:—[see verses 2627-2629 above]:

What the author means is that the contingency that has been urged by the Mīmāṃsaka does not affect the Buddhist position. Because the Buddhist does not hold that the relationship between the Word and Meaning is direct; according to him, it belongs to the Man; so that if the said view is found to be defective, that does no harm to the Buddhist. What belongs to one thing cannot form the Relationship of another thing; if it did, there would be incongruities.

It has been asked—“Is the Convention made for each utterance? Or at the time of creation?”—where two alternative views have been shown.

The answer to that is that this does not affect our position, as we do not accept either of these views. This is what is said in the words ‘Nor do the other party, etc. etc.’—‘Enam’ stands for the Convention.—‘Pare’—Buddhists. —‘God or any other beings’—i.e. God, Brahmā and so forth.—(2627-2629)