220. 244 CHAPTER IV

244 CHAPTER IV

the cause of his grand-father1. The former position would mean the acceptance of our view. But if the opponent, in order to get out of the difficulty, were to say that the instrumentality of the conventional mean- ing to the rise of "the suggested" in the hearer, does not de- pend on the hearer's actually becoming conscious of it, but on the fact that he has the residual trace2 of the acquisition of the conventional meaning : in this case his assumption is of no psychological value, because it cann ot explain, as we pointed out above, why only certain words arouse certain suggestible meanings and not others. But if he admits consciousness of the conventional before the suggested, the position would again mean the acceptance of our theory. Further, the association of the words, according to the Anvitabhidhanavada, is not with the simple and unrelated meaning but with the related. For, that is the only difference between the Anvitabhidhanavada theory and Abhihitānvaya- vada. Therefore, the opponent cannot talk of the acquisition of conventional meaning, because, according to him, there can be no consciousness of unrelated word, and consequently its unrelated meaning. Now8 if the opponent were to admit the consciousness of isolated and unrelated word and its equally unrelated meaning through the process in acquisition of such a meaning, which is technically called "Avapo- dvapa" and if he were to maintain that the word is associated with the unrelated meaning he immediately becomes a convert. Anvitābhidhānavāda, therefore, is untenable. NECESSITY OF ADMISSION OF THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF ONE MEANING IN THE RISE OF ANOTHER Even the Mimamsaka cannot do without the admission 1. Dh.L. 18-9. 2. Dh. L., 19. 3. Dh. L., 19.