________________
** THE REVEALED WORD."
1087
of others have declared that it is the Universal that stands'. So that the view now put forth would involve the contradiction of what has been admitted by them.
This is what is shown in the words In one form or the other, etc. etc. In whatever form the Universal' has been postulated by philosophers, in accordance with their respective doctrines, it is held, by all parties, to be eternal. If it were not so, then, like the Individuals, each Universal, appearing after the other, would become intermingled; and the very character of the Universal' would become lost.-(2313-2314)
Having thus pointed out the defects in the Subject' through the various alternative views regarding the nature of the thing itself (Shabda) the Mimümsaka now proceeds to point out the same, through the various alternative views regarding the exact nature of the Probandum (noneternality) :
TEXTS (2315-2316). " THEN AGAIN, IF BY ' NON-ETERNALITY' YOU MEAN proneness to absolute
destruction, THEN, SO FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED, THE SUBJECT COMES TO BE ONE WHOSE QUALIFICATION IS not admitted.-IF WHAT IS MEANT IS some sort OF CHARACTER WHICH MAKES Shabda LIABLE TO BEING CALLED NON-ETERNAL', THEN SUCH' NON-ETERNALITY WOULD BE ONE THAT IS ADMITTED BY US ALSO, IN THE SENSE THAT FROM THE UNMANIFESTED STATE' IT COMES INTO THE
MANIFESTED STATE" - Shlokavārtika-ETERNALITY OF WORDS, 326-327).-(2315-2316)
COMMENTARY.
If by 'non-eternality' you mean that the Word Sound is liable to absolute destruction, leaving no trace behind-then, so far as we, Mimām. sakas, are concerned, the qualification would be inadmissible', and this would vitiate your premiss. Because for the Mimamsakas, as for the Sankthyas, there is no such thing as absolute destruction'; because even when the Jar disappears, it continues to exist in the form of a Potency; in the case of things like the Lamp also, the view is that (when it is blown out) its subtle particles become scattered in all directions.
If however what you mean to prove is that the Word-sound is somehow capable of being called 'non-eternal', then the argument is open to the charge of being futile'; because even when Word-sounds are eternal, it is admitted by us also that they may be called 'non-eternal' in the sense of going from the unmanifested state' to the manifested state' and viceversa.-(2315-2316)
So far the Proposition (of the Buddhist) that Word is non-eternal has been criticised in detail. The Mimümsaka now proceeds to criticise his Reason-'Because it is perceptible by the Senses :