________________
"THE REVEALED WORD."
1057
the same on the ground that otherwise no connection could be set up between the Word and its meaning :
TEXTS (2244-2245)
"NO CONNECTION CAN BE SET UP WITHOUT PRONOUNCING THE WORD; AND WHEN THE WORD PERISHES AS SOON AS IT IS PRONOUNCED, IT CAN HAVE NO NEED FOR ANY CONNECTION. CONSEQUENTLY, AS THE WORD WILL HAVE PERISHED AND WOULD NOT HAVE HAD ITS CONNECTION SET UP, THE FIRST WORD MUST BE INEXPRESSIVE (MEANINGLESS); HOW THEN COULD THE SUBSEQUENT WORD ALSO, WHICH HAS HAD NO CONNECTION SET UP, BE RECOGNISED As expressive ?”—[ShlokavārtikaETERNALITY OF WORDS,
256-258].—(2244-2245)
COMMENTARY.
First of all there is utterance of the Word, then the setting up of its connection (with its denotation),—then its actual use, in practice such is the way in which Words are dealt with in actual practice. How could all this process be gone through if the Word perished immediately on being uttered, and as such how can it be open to any sequential operation? It is not only that for what has perished, no connection can be set up; there would not be any use in setting up any such connection; as it would not be present at the time of usage ; and it is only for the purposes of use that Conventions (regarding words and their meanings) are set up.
The words 'Consequently, etc. etc. sum up the conclusion; the compound 'asambandhanastatvät' is to be explained as- because it would be asambandha—without its connection set up,- and because it would be nasta-perished the first word—that was there at the time of making the Convention, must be inexpressive'.
It might be said that the Word appearing at the time of usage would be expressive!
The answer to that is— How then could the subsequent Word, etc. etc.' (2244-2245)
It might be urged that-if the successive utterance, etc. of the nonsequential Word is not possible, they may be simultaneous.
The answer to this, from the Mimämsaka, is as follows: