________________
802
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XIX,
TEXT (1635)
As A MATTER OF YACT, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF samene88, THERE IS NOTHING INCOMPATIBLE IN THE EXPRESSION OF THINGS BY WORDS ; JUST AS THERE IS EXPRESSION BY SUCH MEANS AS THE SHAKING OF THE HAND AND
SO FORTH.-- (1635)
COMMENTARY.
There is no incompatibility in the expression of things by such noneternal means as the shaking of the hand, winking of the eye and so forth; similarly, oven in the absence of the sameness of the Word (at the time of Convention and at the time of Usage), there should be no incompatibility in the expression of things by the Word. So that the Instance that has been cited is Inconclusive.
Sameness' here stands for eternality: 'being different' constitutes evanescence; hence being non-different or saame constitutes eternality. (1635)
Says the Opponent :-"It has been pointed out that if the Word were not eternal, then it could not continue during all the time between the Convention and the Usage."
The answer to that is as follows:
TEXT (1636).
WHAT SERVES AS THE CAUSE OF THE EXPRESSIVENESS OF WORDS IS THE SAMENESS OF THE CONCEPTION, LIKE shaking : AND THERE IS NO INCOMPATIBILITY IN
THIS.-(1636)
COMMENTARY.
Though the Specific Individualities being all momentary, there can be concomitance or continuity of them, yet there are some specific Individualities which are so constituted that, either directly or indirectly, they become the cause of an illusory conception of sameness; and hence becoming conceived as the same, they become expressive, through Convention; Like Shaking-i.e. just as Shaking is expressive':-(1636)
The Opponent urges the objection that "the instance of 'shaking that has been cited is devoid of the Probandum":