आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

तेजः प्रत्यक्षशेषत्वान्नवत्वेऽपि प्रकाशकम् ।
सदृशत्वाप्रतीतेश्च तद्द्वाकेणाप्यवाचकः ॥ २२४० ॥

tejaḥ pratyakṣaśeṣatvānnavatve’pi prakāśakam |
sadṛśatvāpratīteśca taddvākeṇāpyavācakaḥ || 2240 ||

“Light is auxiliary to the perception; hence, even when newly lit, it illumines things; [not so the word].—[If it be urged that] in the case of the word the comprehension of the meaning of a certain word is due to its similarity to another well-known word;—then the answer is that so long as the similarity is not recognised, the word cannot be expressive (of that meaning)—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 248-249].—(2240)

Kamalaśīla

Says the Opponent—The light of the lamp, even when newly lit, illumines the object; similarly the Word also would express its meaning (when heard and used for the first time).

The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 2240 above]

‘Light is auxiliary to the Perception’—i.e. it is an appurtenance of the Perception; as a matter of fact, it becomes an auxiliary to Perceptional

Cognition, by embellishing either the Object or the Sense-organ; and as such, even when newly lit, it serves the purpose of illumining things. As regards the Word, on the other hand, directly it denotes only supersensuous things, and as such it cannot be an auxiliary to Perception. So that there is no analogy between the two cases.

Or (the meaning of the Text may be as follows)—What is auxiliary to Perception illumines things independently of the idea of any connection between the two (the illuminator and the illuminated);—e.g. the Eye;—Light is auxiliary to Perception;—hence, even when newly lit, it illumines things;—Word, on the other hand, pertaining, as it does, to imperceptible things, is not auxiliary to Perception.—Hence there is a vast difference between the two cases (of the Lamp and of the Word).

Says the Opponent—Even a new Word would express the meaning through its similarity to a previously-known Word.

The answer is—‘So long as the similarity, etc. etc.’—So long as the Similarity has not been actually recognised, the expressiveness of the Word cannot be due to it; otherwise there would be incongruities.—(2240)

Then again, the recognition of similarity may rest awhile; as a matter -of fact, no similarity is possible at all;—this is what is explained in the following:—[see verses 2241-2242 next]