________________
1052
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XXIV.
what way does this fact of the relationship of the Word being known prove its eternality ?
The Mimämsaka's answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (2235).
“THE COGNITION OF SUCH RELATIONSHIP OF THE WORD (TO ITS MEANING) COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF THE WORD WERE NOTETERNAL; BECAUSE, IF THE COGNITION OF THAT RELATIONSHIP IS ADMITTED, IT CERTAINLY PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF THE WORD AT SOME OTHER TIME ALSO."-[Shlokavārtika-ETERNALITY OF WORDS, 243-244).
(2235)
COMMENTARY.
The relationship between the Word and what is denoted by it can be established only when both are present before the man--and it is only when thus made that it could be cognised at a later time. All this could not be possible if the Word perished as soon as it was produced.
This is what is meant by the words It would not be possible if the Word were not-eternal.
If then, it is admitted that the Word existed at the time, then the idea of its having existed at other times becomes irresistiblo; as that would not be incompatible with the facts. This has been thus stated- If it exists during that time, who can destroy it later on?'-(Text 2139 ShlokavārtikaEternality of Words, 366).
It might be argued that-It may be that the Word exists at the time that the relationship (with its denotation) is set up; but later on, it would porish of itself.
The Mimämsaka's answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (2236).
"IF THE RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN RECOGNISED WITH ONE WORD, ANY OTHER WORD CANNOT BE EXPRESSIVE OF THAT MEANING (WHOSE RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN COGNISED WITH ANOTHER WORD). FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN RECOGNISED WITH THE WORD 'Cow', THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE WORD 'HORSE' EXPRESSIVE (OF THAT MEANING". [Shlokavārtika-ETERNALITY OF WORDS,
244-245].-(2236)
COMMENTARY
With one word'-i.e. with the Word that existed at the time that the Convention was set up fixing its denotation.