आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

अनित्यत्वं च नाशित्वं यद्यात्यन्तिकमुच्यते ।
ततोऽस्मान्प्रति पक्षः स्यादप्रसिद्धविशेषणः ॥ २३१५ ॥
यथाकथंचिदिष्टा चेदनित्यव्यपदेश्यता ।
अनभिव्यक्त्यवस्थातः साऽभिसा हि व्यक्त्यात्मतेष्यते ॥ २३१६ ॥

anityatvaṃ ca nāśitvaṃ yadyātyantikamucyate |
tato’smānprati pakṣaḥ syādaprasiddhaviśeṣaṇaḥ || 2315 ||
yathākathaṃcidiṣṭā cedanityavyapadeśyatā |
anabhivyaktyavasthātaḥ sā’bhisā hi vyaktyātmateṣyate || 2316 ||

“Then again, if by ‘non-eternality’ you mean proneness to absolute destruction, then, so far as we are concerned, the ‘subject’ comes to be one whose qualification is not admitted,—if what is meant is some sort of character which makes śabda liable to being called ‘non-eternal’,—then such ‘non-eternality’ would be one that is admitted by us also,—in the sense that from the ‘unmanifested state’ it comes into the ‘manifested state’—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 326-327].—(2315-2316)

Kamalaśīla

Having thus pointed out the defects in the ‘Subject’ through the various alternative views regarding the nature of the thing itself (Śabda) the Mīmāṃsaka now proceeds to point out the same, through the various alternative views regarding the exact nature of the Probandum (non-eternality):—[see verses 2315-2316 above]

If by ‘non-eternality’ you mean that the Word-Sound is liable to absolute destruction, leaving no trace behind,—then, so far as we, Mīmāṃsakas, are concerned, the qualification would he ‘inadmissible’, and this would vitiate your premiss. Because for the Mīmāṃsakas, as for the Sāṅkhyas, there is no such thing as ‘absolute destruction’; because even when the Jar disappears, it continues to exist in the form of a Potency; in the case of things like the Lamp also, the view is that (when it is blown out) its subtle particles become scattered in all directions.

If however what you mean to prove is that—the Word-sound is somehow capable of being called ‘non-eternal’,—then the argument is open to the charge of being ‘futile’; because even when Word-sounds are eternal, it is admitted by us also that they may be called ‘non-eternal’ in the sense of going from the ‘unmanifested state’ to the ‘manifested state’ and vice-versa.—(2315-2316)