________________
( 13 )
2. If the Grammarian's doctrine is believed to be true, we cannot explain how in the case of synonyms we notice the same sense signified by each one of them. The words are all different from one another and if the sense of one is believed to be identical with it, it should naturally be different from the sense of another.
3. There are certain words which seek construction amongst themselves with the relationship of opposition (sāmānādhikaranya) but these words have different forms. Thus, the words 'tree' and 'mango' though differing in their forms are known to be related to each other, the relationship in question being one of opposition. But, the Grammarian with his theory cannot explain such relationship in view of the fact that the two words mentioned above are as different from each other as any two other words, e.g., 'pitcher' and 'canvas' which in our opinion, too, do not bear the relationship mentioned above.
4. Word is always of the form of an accomplished entity whereas an object signified by it is not so. Hence, unless it is admitted that objects are also in the nature of accomplished entities there is no sense in saying with the Grammarian that word is identical with its import. But, it is a matter of common knowledge that all objects signified by words are not invariably accomplished entities, some of them being in the process of accomplishment as well.
5. The assumption of the Grammarian to the effect that a particular word signifies a particular import and not any other is hardly warranted.
6. If all words are supposed to undergo evolution in the form of import, the position comes to this that the reality of import is shaken to its very foundations and we are bound to accept that words
