1449 Verse 2235

Original

सम्बन्धदर्शनं चास्य नानित्यस्योपपद्यते ।
सम्बन्धज्ञानसिद्धिश्चेद्ध्रुवं कालान्तरस्थितिः ॥ २२३५ ॥

sambandhadarśanaṃ cāsya nānityasyopapadyate |
sambandhajñānasiddhiśceddhruvaṃ kālāntarasthitiḥ || 2235 ||

“The cognition of such relationship of the word (to its meaning) could not be possible if the word were not-eternal; because, if the cognition of that relationship is admitted, it certainly proves the existence of the word at some other time also.”—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 243-244].—(2235)

Kamalaśīla

Says the Opponent—As regards the argument just set forth, there is no dispute at all; hence it is superfluous; as a matter of fact, there is no one who holds that any meaning is expressed by a Word whose connection with such meaning has not been already known. But the question is—In what way does this fact of the relationship of the Word being known prove its eternality?

The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 2235 above]

The relationship between the Word and what is denoted by it can he established only when both are present before the man;—and it is only when thus made that it could be cognised at a later time. All this could not be possible if the Word perished as soon as it was produced.

This is what is meant by the words—‘It would not be possible if the Word were not-eternal’.

If then, it is admitted that the Word existed at the time, then the idea of its having existed at other times becomes irresistible; as that would not be incompatible with the facts. This has been thus stated—‘If it exists during that time, who can destroy it later on?’—(Text 2139—Ślokavārtika—Eternality of Words, 366).—(2235)