Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c19.10.1

c19.10.1

We have seen that the denotation of words—i.e., the relation between Words and their Denotation—is Eternal, without beginning or end. Now as regards the Eternality of the Words themselves, it has been pointed out that we comprehend the meaning of Words by observing their use among experienced people on various occasions. If then, at each time the older man speaks of a thing, he were to create a new name for it for the occasion,—which name could disappear as soon as uttered,—necessary corollaries of the view that the Word is evanescent,—then what basis would the younger man have for observing the frequent use of the Word and thereby ascertaining its meaning? As each time that the thing is spoken of, he would be face to face with a newly created Word, never heard before; and under the circumstances, the meaning of the Word would remain ever uncomprehended and incomprehensible; and until the Word affords some Cognition, it cannot be regarded as a Valid Means of Cognition (*pramāṇa*). Consequently, unless the Logician is prepared to deny this character to the Word, he must accept it as Eternal. Then there arises the question—“If the Word is Eternal, why is it not *always* present in our Consciousness?” The answer to this is that, though the Words is ever present, yet, in order that it may become cognised, it stands in need of certain auxiliary aids that serve to manifest it and render it cognisable, or present it to our consciousness.