0656 Verse 907

Original

एतेनैव विवक्षाऽपि शब्दगम्या निराकृता ।
शब्दार्थासम्भवे हीत्थं क्व विवक्षा क्व वा श्रुतिः ॥ ९०७ ॥

etenaiva vivakṣā’pi śabdagamyā nirākṛtā |
śabdārthāsambhave hītthaṃ kva vivakṣā kva vā śrutiḥ || 907 ||

This same argument serves to set aside the ‘desire to speak’ as (held to be) cognised through words. when, as shown above, there can be no ‘denotation of words’, how could there be any ‘desire to speak’? Or even the word itself?—(907)

Kamalaśīla

Other people have asserted as follows’,—“The Word brings about the Inference of the desire to speak (of a certain thing), as declared in the statement that ‘There is no other means save the Word of inferring the desire to speak’.”—This is answered in the following—[see verse 907 above]

If the ‘desire to speak’ is really held to be appurtenant to the real ‘Import of Words’,—then it is ‘unproven’; because there can be no ‘Import of Words’ in the shape of any such thing as ‘Specific Individuality’ and the rest. Hence there can be no real ‘desire to speak’ of any object; as there is nothing to which the word may be related.

Nor can there be a word denotative of the object; this is what is stated in the words—‘or even the word itself’.—‘Śruti’ stands for the Word. If the ‘desire to speak’, is what is expressed by the Word, then the Word cannot be applied to any external object; as it would not be expressed, like any other thing.—(907)