Mimamsasutra 3.2.32-2.p2

3.2.32-2.p2

brūmaḥ- ya eva laukikāḥ padārthāḥ, ta eva vaidikāḥ | tathā hi - varṇānāṃ tāvannityatvaṃ prathamapāde sādhitam | yathā prayoktṝṇāṃ puruṣāṇāṃ bhede'pyekaikasya puruṣasya bahukṛtva uccāraṇabhede'pi ’ ta evāmī varṇāḥ ’ iti pratyabhijñānādvarṇaikyam | tathā ’ yāni loke gavādipadāni , tānyeva vede'dhīyamānāni ’ ityavādhitapratyabhijñayā padaikatvamabhyupeyam | ’ tmanā, devāsaḥ ’ ityādipadabhedastu kvācitkaḥ | naitāvatā bahutarapratyabhijñāvagataṃ padaikyamapoḍhuṃ śakyam | anyathā ’so'yaṃ devadattaḥ ’ iti pratyabhijñātaṃ devadattaikyamapi deśādibhedamātreṇāpodyeta | padaikye cārthaikatvamavaśyaṃbhāvi | anyathā vede pṛthagvyutpattyabhāvādabodhakatvaṃ prasajyeta | etadevābhipretyoktam -

We reply: those very meanings of words that are everyday are Vedic as well. To explain: to begin with, the eternality of phonemes was established in the first quarter. Just as, despite the difference among the persons employing them, and despite the difference in many utterances made even by a single person, there is identity of phonemes because of the recognition: "These are those very same phonemes"—likewise, one must accept identity of words by virtue of the uncontradicted recognition: "Those very words such as 'gauḥ' in everyday life are the ones being recited in the Veda." As for the difference of words such as 'tmanā' and 'devāsaḥ', it is merely occasional; not by that much can the identity of words, grasped through abundant recognition, be set aside. Otherwise, even the identity of Devadatta recognized as "This is that Devadatta" could be set aside merely by a difference of place and the like. And when there is identity of words, identity of meaning is inevitable; otherwise, because of the absence of a separate grasping of convention in the Veda, the consequence would be its lack of expressive power. Intending this very point, it is said: