________________
1204
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXT (2626).
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE RELATIONSHIP TO BE real and one. BECAUSE THE THINGS DENOTED BEING DISTINCT AND DIVERSE, THERE
WOULD BE NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL.-(2626)
COMMENTARY.
The one Relationship, when there, could subsist either in different, or non-different, things.-It cannot subsist in different things; because each thing rests within itself in its own distinct form ; and there can be no intermixture.-If it were in non-different things, then, as the entity would be one only, wherewith would there be any Relationship? So that there would be no Relationship at all.-(2626)
The Mimämsaka has raised the objection against the view that the Relationship consists of the Convention, under Text 2254,- to the effect that -“Is this Convention made for each mortal being or for each utterance of the Word ? and so forth".
It is pointed out in the following texts that this argument is entirely 'futile :
TEXTS (2627-2629).
AS REGARDS THE ASSERTION THAT" THE CONVENTION BEING MADE
FOR EACH MORTAL BEING, OR FOR EACH UTTERANCE, ETC. ETC.”HAS BEEN MADE WITEOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE VIEW OF THE OTHER PARTY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CONVENTION AS CONSTITUTING THE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT BELONG TO THE TWO FACTORS (WORD AND ITS MEANING),--IT BELONGS TO THE MAN; THE ONLY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO IS THAT ONE SERVES TO MANIFEST (INDICATE) THE OTHER; AND THIS RELATIONSHIP ALSO IS NOT DIRECT. -NOR DO THE OTHER PARTY HOLD THE CONVENTION TO PERTAIN TO EACH UTTERANCE ;-NOR (ACCORDING TO THEM) IS THE CONVENTION MADE BY GOD, OR ANY OTHER BEING, AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION; AS THE IDEA OF SUCH BEINGS HAS BEEN ALREADY REJECTED.—(2627–2629)
COMMENTARY.
What the author means is that the contingency that has been urged by the Mimāmsaka does not affect the Buddhist position. Because the Buddhist does not hold that the relationship between the Word and Meaning is direct ; according to him, it belongs to the Man; so that if the said view is found to be defective, that does no harm to the Buddhist. What belongs to one thing cannot form the Relationship of another thing; if it did, there would be incongruities.
It has been asked—“Is the Convention made for each utterance? Or at the time of creation ?"-where two alternative views have been shown.
