________________
Verbal Testimony
be nonsensical. The crux of his argurnent lies in the contention that if a word be not an eternal entity then the word 'cow' (say) uttered now and the word 'cow' uttered on another occasion must be as much different from each other as are the word 'cow' and the word 'horse' (vv. 243-44). On Kumārila's showing, a teacher at the time of teaching the meaning of a word to a learner employs this word two or three times and it acquires a meaning for the learner only when uttered last time, but if a word as uttered at one time is different from it as uttered at another time then this would mean that a word becomes meaningful to a learner as a result of being uttered in a meaningless fashion once or twice; nor can it be said that the two or three words in question are similar to cach other, for a meaningful word cannot at all be similar to a meaningless word (vv. 248-50, 258-63). An essentially similar difficulty has been urged against the possibility of establishing relation between a word and its meaning, for at the time of establishing this relation too a word requires to be pronouced several times, nor can it be said that pronouncing a word, establishing relation between it and its meaning, and practically demonstrating this meaning--these three acts can be performed simultaneously, for it is the very nature of these acts that they are performed one after another (vv. 255-58). Kumārila also refutes the thesis that God at the time of world-creation established relation between a word and its meaning and that the subsequent generations of men employed a word similar to it, for on his showing this could be possible only in case those later men were acquainted with that word uttered by God (vv. 264). The following is how he continues his argument : "Nor can it be said that the first created men were in fact acquainted with God's word and that the tradition of employing words similar to it began from them, for this too requires that a last man employing this word is acquainted with the entire past tradition of employing it (vv. 265-66). Moreover, an act performed on the basis of similarity becomes a very different act within a space of few generations--- that on the opponont's hypothisis a word as uttered now must have become very different from the same as uttered by God at the time of world--creation (vv. 26768). As a matter of fact, if a word is really employed on the basis of its similarity with God's word then his employment must be a case of mistaken performance just like the act of inferring fire on the basis of vapour rather than smoke (v. 269).”
(iii)
(vv.278-308) In this part of his text Kumărila considers the question as to how a wordcomposed-of-letters is to be conceived as an eternal entity just like these letters themselves, a question that seems to have taxed his patience considerbly. For on a later occation (Section XVIII, v.112) he remarks as if in exasperation: 'It is with difficulty that we have established that the letters themselves are capable of acting as a word'. In this connection the opponent's case runs as follows (vv.278-93) : “The words are of the form of letters following an order of succession, but since letters are themselves eternal the order of succession followed by them must be product of dhvani which
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
