________________
" THE REVEALED WORD."
1053
The rest is easily understood.—(2236)
The following Text anticipates and answers an argument of the Opponent :
TEXT (2237). "IF IT BE URGED THAT THAT OTHER WORD ALSO (WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE CONVENTION) MAY BE EXPRESSIVE THROUGH ITS OWN INHERENT APTITUDE', THEN, IN THAT CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FIXED RULE, THERE COULD BE NO CERTAINTY AS TO WHICH IS THE WORD THAT IS REALLY EXPRESSIVE." [Shlokavārtika-ETERNALITY OF
WORDS, 245-246].—(2237)
COMMENTARY.
Other Word'-.e. if the Word that exists at the time of its use is held to be expressive, through its own inherent aptitude, like the Word that existed at the time of the Convention that cannot be right; because in the absence of a fixed rule, there could be no certainty as to which Word is expressive of which meaning.---(2237)
Says the Opponent-How do you say that there can be no certainty, when, as a matter of fact, it is clearly ascertained that it is by its inherent aptitude that the word expresses its meaning ?
The Mimāmsaka's answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (2238).
"IF THE USE OF WORDS BE ASSUMED TO BE BASED UPON ACTUAL EXPERIENCE AS TO WHICH WORD BRINGS ABOUT THE COGNITION (OF A CERTAIN THING), THIS MAY SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE HEARERS OF THE WORD ; IT CANNOT DO SO FOR THOSE WHO USE THE WORD.” [Shlokavārtika-ETERNALITY OF
WORDS, 246-247].—(2238)
COMMENTARY.
True; what has been asserted would bring about certainty in the minds of the hearers--as to a certain Word being expressive of a particular thing; because they may have a certain cognition arising on the hearing of the Word. But this will not be possible for those who use the Word; because they do not derive any cognition of anything from that Word ; as they use that Word for the purpose of bringing about the cognition for the hearers only. Under the circumstances, how could there be any certainty in the minds of the persons using the Word ?-(2238)
The same idea is further explained