Mimamsasutra 109.2

109.2

gaur gāvī goṇī gopotalikā ityevamādayaḥ śabdā udāharaṇam. gośabdo yathā sāsnādim iti pramāṇam, kiṃ tathā gāvyādayo 'py uta neti saṃdehaḥ. kim atraikaḥ śabdo 'vicchinnapāramparyo 'rthābhidhāyī, itare 'pabhraṃśāḥ, uta sarve 'nādayaḥ. sarva iti brūmaḥ. kutaḥ. pratyayāt. pratīyate hi gāvyādibhyaḥ sāsnādimān arthaḥ. tasmād ito varṣaśate 'py asyārthasya saṃbandha āsīd eva, tataḥ pareṇa, tataś ca paratareṇety anāditā. kartā cāsya saṃbandhasya nāstīti vyavasthitam eva. tasmāt sarve sādhavaḥ, sarvair bhāṣitavyam. sarve hi sādhayanty artham. yathā - hastaḥ, karaḥ, pāṇir iti. arthāya hy eta uccāryante, nādṛṣṭāya. na hy eṣām uccāraṇe śāstram asti. tasmān na vyavatiṣṭheta kaścid eka eva sādhur itare 'sādhava iti.

Words such as *go*, *gāvī*, *goṇī*, *gopotalikā*, and so forth are the examples. Just as the word *go* is authoritative regarding the [entity possessing] dewlap and so forth, is it likewise for *gāvī* and the rest, or not?—this is the doubt. In this matter, is one word possessing an unbroken tradition the designator of the meaning and the others corrupt forms, or are they all beginningless? We say: all of them. Why? Because of cognition. For from *gāvī* and the rest the entity possessing a dewlap is cognized. Therefore, even a hundred years prior to this, the relation to this meaning certainly existed, and earlier than that, and still earlier than that; hence there is beginninglessness. And that there is no creator of this relation has already been established. Therefore, all are correct; all may be spoken. For all accomplish the meaning, as in *hastaḥ*, *karaḥ*, and *pāṇiḥ*. For these are uttered for the sake of the meaning, not for an unseen purpose; for there is no scriptural rule governing their utterance. Therefore, it cannot be fixed that only a certain one is correct and the others are incorrect.