1133 Verse 1635

Original

अनन्यत्ववियोगेऽपि शब्दानां न विरुध्यते ।
अर्थप्रत्यायनं यद्वत्पाणिकम्पादिकारणम् ॥ १६३५ ॥

ananyatvaviyoge’pi śabdānāṃ na virudhyate |
arthapratyāyanaṃ yadvatpāṇikampādikāraṇam || 1635 ||

As a matter of fact, even in the absence of sameness, there is nothing incompatible in the expression of things by words; just as there is expression by such means as the shaking of the hand and so forth.—(1635)

Kamalaśīla

It has been argued (under Text 1600) that—“Inasmuch as the Denotation of a word cannot be otherwise defined, we assume the expressive Potency of Words, etc. etc.”;—where an example has been cited of a Presumption based upon another Presumption.

The following Text points out that the argument is ‘Inconclusive’—[see verse 1635 above]

There is no incompatibility in the expression of things by such non-eternal means as the shaking of the hand, winking of the eye and so forth; similarly, even in the absence of the sameness of the Word (at the time of Convention and at the time of Usage), there should be no incompatibility in the expression of things by the Word. So that the Instance that has been cited is Inconclusive.

‘Sameness’ here stands for eternality; ‘being different’ constitutes evanescence; hence ‘being non-different or same’ constitutes eternality.—(1635)