Verse 2659-2660

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

नानार्थद्योतने शक्तिर्भवत्वेकस्य हि ध्वनेः ।
नाग्निहोत्रादयस्त्वर्थाः सर्वे सर्वोपयोगिनः ॥ २६५९ ॥
तदिष्टविपरीतार्थद्योतनस्यापि सम्भवात् ।
नित्यशब्दार्थसम्बन्धकल्पना वो निरर्थका ॥ २६६० ॥

nānārthadyotane śaktirbhavatvekasya hi dhvaneḥ |
nāgnihotrādayastvarthāḥ sarve sarvopayoginaḥ || 2659 ||
tadiṣṭaviparītārthadyotanasyāpi sambhavāt |
nityaśabdārthasambandhakalpanā vo nirarthakā || 2660 ||

A single word may have the potency to express several meanings. Even so, such things as the ‘agnihotra’ and the like, cannot all be of use to all men; because it is possible that they may express things contrary to what is desired by a certain person. Hence your assumption of an eternal relationship between the word and its meaning is entirely futile.—(2659-2660)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Taking for granted (for the sake of argument) that the Word has the Potency of expressing several meanings,—the Author proceeds to point out another objection:—[see verses 2659-2660 above]

Even though words may have the capacity of expressing several meanings,—the things denoted by them are not capable of all effective actions; as the causal efficiency of all things is restricted. If it were not so, then there would be nothing destructive or non-destructive.—Thus then, when one wishes to speak of something capable of accomplishing a particular fruitful act,—and proceeds to set about the Convention in connection with a Word which by its nature is capable of expressing things,—he should set up only that Convention which would be conducive to the expression of only that particular thing which he desires to speak of;—but how could this be secured? Thus, there being a possibility of mistake, there is no point in assuming an eternal relationship between Words and Meanings.—(2059-2660)

The author again proceeds to point out the futility of the assumption—[see verses 2661-2662 next]