1663 Verse 2612-2613

Original

अत्यन्तभेदिनोऽप्येते तुल्यप्रत्यवमर्शने ।
शक्ताः शब्दास्तदर्थाश्चेत्यसकृच्चर्चितं पुरा ॥ २६१२ ॥
नातो दृष्टार्थसम्बन्धः शब्दो भवति वाचकः ।
स्ववृत्त्या वस्तुतस्त्वेष वाचको नेति साधितम् ॥ २६१३ ॥

atyantabhedino’pyete tulyapratyavamarśane |
śaktāḥ śabdāstadarthāścetyasakṛccarcitaṃ purā || 2612 ||
nāto dṛṣṭārthasambandhaḥ śabdo bhavati vācakaḥ |
svavṛttyā vastutastveṣa vācako neti sādhitam || 2613 ||

It has been frequently explained before that words and things that are entirely different from one another are capable of providing the same ideas. Hence it is not true that the word becomes expressive only when its relationship to its denotation has been apprehended. because, as already explained before, in reality, the word, by itself, is not expressive at all.—(2612-2613)

Kamalaśīla

It has been argued by the Mīmāṃsaka, under Text 2234, that—“a word whose relationship to its denotation has not been apprehended can never be expressive, etc. etc.”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 2612-2613 above]:

The sense of this is briefly as follows:—If what you are urging is the contingency that there would be no real denotative relationship between the Word and its denotation,—then your argument is futile; because under the chapter on Word, the idea of the ‘Universal’, or the ‘Specific Individuality’ of things, being denoted by words has been refuted at length.

If what you are urging is in regard to the illusory denotative relationship, then your Reason is ‘Inconclusive Because, as a matter of fact, there are certain things which, though entirely different from one another, serve to bring about cognitions of the same form; and these would bring about the illusory denotative relationship between the Word and its meaning;—as we have already explained in course of the discussion on ‘Apoha’, Consequently, as against the Buddhists, who are upholders of the doctrine of Apoha, all that has been urged is entirely worthless and flickers only for a moment.—(2612-2613)