In plain words
exist, what varṇa is — do people even try to inquire into these doubts? No. The word varṇa is just a word. Every word has its own meaning; therefore the word varṇa too must have a meaning, mustn't it? For 'tree', the sound 'vṛkṣa' itself is the proof; a word, that is, is a sound. For 'elephant', the sound 'elephant' itself is the proof. In the same way, the moment we utter the words 'cat', 'dog', 'fox', we grasp the corresponding forms as the meanings of those sounds. Those sounds existed before us; we were born within the very web of words, but we did not create the words. Even if we were to say we would create a word, at least four people would have to come together, wouldn't they! And before that, such words -- and their meanings -- would already have to exist, wouldn't they! So the claim that we ourselves determined both the words and their meanings should be understood to be impossible! Words and their meanings existed even before we were born; among them, we simply use the ones we need. 'Vāk' means a word, or 'pada'; and the meanings of words alone are the objects that exist in creation. That is exactly why the things in creation came to be called 'padārthas' -- 'padārtha' means the word and its meaning together. The word 'hillock' simply refers to whatever hill stands facing us; the word 'pot' refers to a shape made of clay -- that is its meaning.
In just the same way, must there not be measures -- referents -- indicated by the meanings of the words 'brāhmaṇa', 'vaiśya', 'śūdra'? The question of who is a brāhmaṇa and who is not is beside the point here; one must understand that this is simply the point that proves a word has a meaning. So it becomes clear that the whole world is words and their meanings. Another word for pada, a word, is nāma, a name; and artha, meaning, is rūpa, form. In short, 'world' means name-and-form. That is exactly why the whole world is nothing but name and form.