________________
1250
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
there can be no sequence due to breaks in the continuity, because they occupy the whole space entirely; as all things subsist in one part of Akasha only.--Nor can sequence in time belong to Letters ; because, being eternal, they must be all synchronous.
Then again, the order of sequence could either be made by man or be inherent in the Letters. It is not held to be due to man; as in that case the Veda would have to be regarded as the work of man.-If then, the sequence is inherent in the Letters, then the form would always be sa-ra-never *ra-sa'.
Nor can it be admitted that the Letters appearing in different words are different ; because Letters have been proved to be eternal on the ground of their being recognised as the same everywhere. And it is the denial of this sameness that would be asserted in the said proposition that they are different in different words). Otherwise Recognition as the reason for eternality) would be Inconclusive.-(2762-2766)
It might be argued that—"the Sentence shall consist in the order of sequence in the manifestation (and appearance of the Letters)".
The answer to that is as follows:
TEXT (2767).
THE ORDER OF SEQUENCE IN THE MANIFESTATION CANNOT CONSTITUTE THE Sentence, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT THERE CAN BE NO 'MANIFESTATION OF WHAT IS ETERNAL.--FOR THIS
REASON THE ETERNALITY OF THE SENTENCE CANNOT BE DUE TO ITS BEING RELATED TO THE Universal 'SENTENCE'.
-(2767)
COMMENTARY.
The particle cha' implies that the Sentence cannot consist of the Sphofa as something different from the Letters ;-the idea being that that ides has been rejected by the Mimamsakas themselves.
Nityē vyakti, etc. etc.'-That is, it having been shown that there can be no 'manifestation of what is eternal.-(2767)
It has been argued by the Mimāmsaka, under Text 2339, that-"What is said by the Buddhist may be possible in the case of such technical terms as Vrddhi' because these deal with perceptible things; but in the case of the Veda, the idea of conventionality cannot be possible, etc. etc.".
The answer to this is as follows:
