________________
1060
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XXIV.
When the man who is the Speaker, etc. etc. -What is meant by this is that when the present Speaker, in his return, becomes the Hearer, then all these difficulties would affect him also,-i.e. all those difficulties just shown under Text 2250.
Thus then, for all Speakers, there can be no expressive Word at all : this is the upshot of the whole argument.-(2249-2251)
The following Text sums up the Mimamsaka's position :
TEXT (2252) " FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE WORD AND ITS MEANING SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS ETERNAL ; IT CANNOT BE BASED UPON CONVENTION; AS THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE
IN ANY WAY."-(2252)
COMMENTARY.
In the following Teat, the Mimamsaka sets forth the view opposed to his own
TEXT (2253).
THE REQUISITE CAPACITY DOES NOT BELONG TO THE Denoter (WORD) AND THE DENOTED (MEANING), BY THEMSELVES; THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE DERIVE FROM WORDS IS DUE TO CONVENTION - JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE WINKING OF THE EYE. [Shloka.
vārtika--Sambandhāksēpaparihara, 12).—(2253)
COMMENTARY. As between the Denotative Word and the Denotod meaning, there is no such capacity inherent in their very nature, by virtue of which one is denotative and the other denoted.
Question How then is any idea deduced from the Word ?
Answer: The idea that people, etc. etc. When the causal potency of something is such that it stands in need of Convention, then that cannot be its natural potency or capacity -for example, some idea is derived from the winking of the Eye ;-the causal potency of the Word in bringing about the notion of its meaning is dependent upon Convention hence here we find something contrary to a wider term.
What the Opponent does here is to refute the objections that have been urged by the Mimāmsaka against the conclusion that. Words are not-eternal'.
(2253)