________________
1248
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
If it is admitted that there is difference in the Flame in the two states, - then the loss of eternality becomes inevitable. This is what is pointed out in the following:
TEXT (2759). IF IT WERE NOT SO, TREN WHAT SORT OF 'ETERNAL THING' WOULD THE FLAME BE, WHEN THERE REMAINS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ITS efficient and inefficient STATES 1-(2759)
COMMENTARY. This is easily understood.-(2759)
It has been argued by the Mināmaaka, under Text 2339 that-" The eternality of the Sentence may be asserted in the same manner as that of the Relationship (between Word and Meaning)".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (2760)
THE ETERNALITY OF THE RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ALREADY REJEOTED; HENCE IT IS NOT RIGHT THAT THE ETERNALITY OF THE SENTENCE SHOULD BE REGARDED AS PROVED IN THE SAME MANNER
AS THAT OF THE RELATIONSHIP.-(2760)
COMMENTARY.
With the idea that under your (Mimāmsaka's) view, the sentence itself is impossible, of which you are seeking to prove the eternality, the author proceeds to discuss the nature of the Sentence
TEXT (2761).
WHAT IS THE SENTENCE OF WHICH YOU ARE POSTULATING THE Eternality? IS IT WHAT CONSISTS ONLY OF THE LETTERS ! OR OF THE LETTERS AS APPEARING IN A CERTAIN ORDER OF SEQUENCE? OR IS IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT
(FROM THE LETTERS) ?-(2761)
COMMENTARY,
(1) Is the 'Sentence' only the Letters pure and simple, without any qualifications – Or (2) is it the Letters with the qualification of appearing in a certain order of sequence ?-Or (3) is it something different from the
