Mimamsasutra 118.2.1

118.2.1

tuśabdaḥ pakṣaṃ vyāvartayati. ākṛti śabdārthaḥ. kutaḥ? kriyārthatvāt. śyenacitaṃ cinvīta iti vacanam ākṛtau saṃbhavati, yady ākṛtyarthaḥ śyenaśabdaḥ. vyaktivacane tu na cayanena śyenavyakti[81]r utpādayituṃ śakyata ity aśakyārthavacanād anarthakaḥ. tasmād ākṛtivacanaḥ. nanu śyenavyaktibhiś cayanam anuṣṭhāsyate. na sādhakatamaḥ śyenaśabdārthaḥ, īpsitatamo hy asau śyenaśabdena nirdiśyate. ataś cayanena śyeno nivartayitavyaḥ, sa ākṛtivacanatve 'vakalpyate. nanūbhayatra kriyāyā asaṃbhava eva vyapadiśyate. nākṛtiḥ śabdārthaḥ. kutaḥ. kriyā na saṃbhaved ākṛtau śabdārthe, vrīhīn prokṣatīti. tathā na vyaktiḥ śabdārthaḥ, kriyaiva na saṃbhaved vyakteḥ śabdārthatve, śyenacitaṃ cinvīta iti. yad apy ucyate - vrīhīn prokṣatīti vyaktilakṣaṇārthākṛtir iti, śakyam anyatrāpi śyenacitaṃ cinvīta iti vaditum ākṛtilakṣaṇārthā vyaktir iti. kiṃ punar atra jyāyaḥ. ākṛtiḥ śabdārtha iti. yadi vyaktiḥ śabdārtho bhavet, vyaktyantare na prayujyeta. atha vyaktyantare prayujyate, na tarhi vyaktiḥ śabdārthaḥ, sarvasāmānyaviśeṣavinirmuktā hi vyaktir ity. ucyate - naiṣa doṣaḥ. vyaktyantare sarvasāmānyaviśeṣavinirmukta eva pravartiṣyate. yadi vyaktyantare sarvasāmānyaviśeṣaviyukte pravartiṣyate, sāmānyam eva tarhi tat. nety ucyate - yo hy arthaḥ sāmānyasya viśeṣāṇāṃ cāśrayaḥ, sā vyaktiḥ. vyaktivacanaś ca śabdo na sāmānye, na viśeṣe vartate. teṣāṃ tv āśrayam evābhidadhāti, tena vyaktyantare vṛttir adoṣaḥ. na hi tat sāmānyam.

The word 'but' (tu) sets aside the prima facie view. The meaning of a word is the universal form (ākṛti). Why? Because [words are used] for the purpose of action. The statement, 'One should pile [the fire-altar] in the shape of a hawk' (śyenacitaṃ cinvīta), is intelligible with respect to the universal form, if the word 'hawk' expresses the universal form. But if it expressed the individual, then an individual hawk cannot be brought into being by the piling [of bricks]; and so, because it would express an impossible meaning, it would be meaningless. Therefore, it expresses the universal form. [Objection:] 'Surely the piling could be performed using individual hawks!' [Reply:] The meaning of the word 'hawk' is not the most effective means (instrument), for here it is denoted by the word 'hawk' as that which is most desired to be attained (the object). Hence a hawk is to be produced by means of the piling, and this is conceivable only if it expresses the universal form. [Objection:] 'Surely the impossibility of action is alleged on both sides! The universal form is not the word-meaning. Why? Action would be impossible if the universal form were the word-meaning, as in the statement: "He sprinkles the grains of rice" (vrīhīn prokṣati). Likewise, the individual is not the word-meaning, because action would be impossible if the individual were the word-meaning, as in: "One should pile [the altar] in the shape of a hawk." And as to what is said—that in "He sprinkles the grains of rice," the universal form serves to indicate the individual—one could equally say elsewhere, in "One should pile in the shape of a hawk," that the individual serves to indicate the universal form.' Which, then, is better here? That the universal form is the word-meaning. If the individual were the word-meaning, it could not be applied to another individual. If, on the other hand, it is applied to another individual, then the individual is not the word-meaning; for an individual is devoid of all universals and particulars. [Opponent:] To this it is replied: There is no such fault. It will apply to another individual precisely as devoid of all universals and particulars. [Reply:] If it applies to another individual as devoid of all universals and particulars, then that is nothing but a universal (sāmānya). [Opponent:] No, it is said: that entity which is the locus of the universal and of particulars is the individual; and the word denoting the individual applies neither to the universal nor to the particular, but denotes only their locus; therefore, its application to another individual is not a defect, for it is not a universal. [Reply:]