आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

कस्य चैकस्य सादृश्यात्कल्प्यतां वाचकोऽपरः ।
अदृष्टसङ्गतित्वेन पूर्वेषां तुल्यता यदा ॥ २२४१ ॥
अर्थवान्पूर्वदृष्टश्चेत्तस्यैतावान् क्षणः कुतः ।
द्विस्त्रिर्वाऽनुपलब्धो हि नार्थवान्संप्रतीयते ॥ २२४२ ॥

kasya caikasya sādṛśyātkalpyatāṃ vācako’paraḥ |
adṛṣṭasaṅgatitvena pūrveṣāṃ tulyatā yadā || 2241 ||
arthavānpūrvadṛṣṭaścettasyaitāvān kṣaṇaḥ kutaḥ |
dvistrirvā’nupalabdho hi nārthavānsaṃpratīyate || 2242 ||

“Which particular individual word would it be, through similarity to which another word would be assumed to be expressive? All these words would be equal, in so far as no one among them has its connection (with the meaning) previously known.—If it be held that—‘the word perceived (heard) first of all did actually have a meaning [and the expressiveness of the others would be dependent upon their similarity to that word]’,—then (the answer is)—how could it continue to exist for such a long time? As a matter of fact, a word is not comprehended as having a meaning until it has been heard twice or thrice.”—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 249-250].—(2241-2242)

Kamalaśīla

When one Word has been admitted to be expressive, others could be assumed to be expressive on the ground of their similarity to that Word; but this is not possible; because all Words are equally recognised as not connected with a meaning.

It might be argued that—‘the first Word that was heard at the time of the fixing of the Convention, certainly had a meaning,—and all the rest would be similar to this one’.

The answer to that is—‘How could it, etc. etc.’—How could that first Word—heard previously—continue to exist during all this time when (ex-hypothesi) it must be destroyed as soon as produced.

It might be asked—Even if the Word is destroyed as soon as it is uttered,—why cannot it have a meaning?

The answer to that is—‘A word is not, etc. etc.’—That is, the connection between the Word and its Denotation is recognised only after repeated hearing of it.—(2241-2242)