________________
"THE REVEALED WORD.”
1051
The following might be urged :-If there were no such diversity in the character of the object perceived, how could it appear in its Cognition ?
The answer is- As regards Perception, it is found to be very keen, etc. etc. - In the case of the Jar, even though there is no diversity of characters, yet its Perception is more or loss keen, on account of the largeness or smallness of the Light illumining it in the same way, in the case of Sound also, the diversity of 'Length', Shortness and the like is due to the diversity in the character of the articulation, even though there is no such diversity of character in the Word-Sound itself.-(2230-2233)
The Mimāmsaka again proceeds to show that the Proposition that the Word-Sound is not-eternal' is annulled by the fact that the denotative or expressive potency of the Word cannot be explained otherwise (than by the Presumption of the eternality of the Word) :
TEXT (2234).
"As A MATTER OF FACT, A WORD, WHOSE RELATIONSHIP TO ITS DENOTATION HAS NOT BEEN APPREHENDED, CAN NEVER BE EXPRESSIVE. IF IT WERE SO EXPRESSIVE, THEN, EACH AND EVERY NEW WORD COULD EXPRESS ITS MEANING."-Shiokavārtika
ETERNALITY OF WORDS, 242-243).-(2234)
COMMENTARY.
The Presumption that is here put forward is itself based upon another Presumption: For instance, the expressive Potency of the Word is proved by the Presumption that Verbal Cognition cannot be explained except on that basis and this Potency cannot be explained except on the basis of the eternality of the Word; hence this Presumption is based upon the previous Presumption.
This same idea is expounded in detail in the Text where it is shown that the Word by itself cannot be expressive if its relationship with its denotation has not been apprehended.
If it were so expressive, etc. etc.' ; if the word, whose relationship to the denotation has not been already apprehended, were expressive of its meaning, then even a new word, never heard before, could express its meaning; for instance, words like 'Cow', etc. in the case of the inhabitants of the Närikëla-duipa (the Coconut-Isle) (who are not cognisant of such words).—(2234)
Says the Opponent-As regards the argument just set forth, there is no dispute at all; hence it is superfluous; as a matter of fact, there is no one who holds that any meaning is expressed by a Word whose connection with such meaning has not been already known. But the question is-In