Vidhiviveka 3

3

sa khalu śabdabhedo vā, tadvyāpārā'tiśayo vā'rthabhedo vā ? yada bhidhānācchabdo'pi tathā vyapadeśyaḥ . pramāṇatvādaniyamātpravṛtteḥ saṃvidāśrayāt . samabhivyāhṛteḥ śabdo na vidhiḥ kāryakalpanāt .. pramāṇaṃ hi śabdaḥ pratijñāyate . bodhakaṃ ca pramāṇam . tatra pravṛttihetuṃ kañcanā'rthātiśayamavagamayan śabdaścodanātvena pramāṇatāmaśnute . svayameva tu pravṛtteḥ kārakastāṃ pramāṇatāmapajahyāt . na hi kārako hetuḥ pramāṇam . api tu jñāpakaḥ .

Is it indeed a particular word, an excellence of its operation, or a particular meaning? By designating which, the word too is referred to as such: / Because it is a means of valid cognition, because there is no restriction, because activity rests on consciousness, / because of syntactic juxtaposition, the word is not the injunction, because [otherwise] an effect must be postulated. // For the word is acknowledged to be a means of valid cognition, and a means of valid cognition is a conveyer of knowledge. In that case, conveying a certain excellence of meaning that causes activity, the word attains the status of a means of valid cognition in its capacity as an injunctive Vedic prompt. But if it were itself merely a productive factor of activity, it would abandon that status as a means of valid cognition. For a productive factor cause is not a means of valid cognition; rather, an informative indicator is.