Text 2.26

हेत्व्-अभावान् न लक्षणा ॥ २.१५d ॥

hetv-abhāvān na lakṣaṇā ||2.15d||

hetu—of a cause; abhāvāt—because there is an absence; na—not; lakṣaṇā—Indication.

It is not Indication, because there is no reason for it.

mukhyārtha-bādhaḥ, śakya-sambandhaḥ, rūḍhi-phalānyatarac ceti lakṣāṇāyā hetus tad-abhāvān na sā.

It is not Indication because the reason for it does not occur. That reason is threefold: (1) The incompatibility of the main meaning, (2) a connection with the literal sense of the word, and (3) there is either a conventional usage or a purpose (2.11).

Commentary:

In purposeful figurative usage, the purpose, called the result, is an implied sense. Indication has no power to make one perceive the implied sense because Indication has already been used one time. Indication simply brings about the perception of the indirect meaning (the shore) of the lākṣaṇika word (the Ganges). Thereafter Suggestiveness is the function that reveals the implied sense.

Here Mammaṭa forces others to acknowledge his methodology. In truth, the real proof in this regard is Śabara Svāmī’s statement that a rhetorical function cannot be used twice for the same word, and so on (cited in the appendix of chapter three).