________________
"THE REVEALED WORD."
1083
TEXTS (2304-2305).
"IN SEEKING TO PROVE THE NON-ETERNALITY OF WORDS, THE OTHER
PARTY INCURS THE ODIUM OF CONTRADICTING HIS OWN WORDS, ETC.; AS A MATTER OF FACT, EVERY PROPOSITION IS ASSERTED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING ABOUT THE COMPREHENSION OF WHAT ONE DESIRES TO PROVE ; AND IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE NON-ETERNAL WORD CANNOT EXPRESS ITS OWN MEANING. CONSEQUENTLY, AS YOUR OWN ASSERTION EXPRESSES ITS MEANING, IT FOLLOWS THAT IT MUST BE ETERNAL ; AND THUS THERE IS REJECTION OF THE DESTRUCTIBILITY (NON-ETERNALITY, OF THE WORD)."[Shlokavārtika-ETERNALITY OF WORDS, 313-314].—(2304-2305)
COMMENTARY.
"His own words, etc. - Etc.' is meant to include the contradiction of his own accepted doctrines.
It has been explained'-Under the Text-' A Word is not expressive if its connection with the meaning is not known'. (See Text 2234.)
Consequently, it follows, etc. etc.'-The eternality' follows from-is proved by-the comprehension of the meaning. That is, the eternality is proved by the fact of the comprehension of meaning being otherwise inexplicable.-(2304-2005)
The following Texts point out that the Opponent's assertion implies the rejection of his own accepted doctrine :
TEXTS (2306).
" HAVING ADMITTED THE CAPACITY OF WORDS TO EXPRESS THEIR MEANING, IF THE OPPONENT PROCEEDS TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE, HE CLEARLY SETS ASIDE THE NON-ETERNALITY' (OF WORDS), BY HIS OWN ACCEPTED DOCTRINE".-[Shlokavārtika
ETERNALITY OF WORDS, 315].-(2306)
COMMENTARY.
The Mimāmsaka shows that the Opponent's Proposition goes against all scriptures
