However, Śālikanātha does leave room for the distinction between primary and secondary meaning in cases like “The village is on the Ganges” and “The boy is a lion.” He argues that where the ordinary meaning of words cannot form a connective relationship then there is recourse to secondary meaning. So in the case of words like “Ganges” and “lion,” the meaning–in–relation which is in connection with other word meanings is the secondary meaning, not the primary meaning. Despite this allowance for a distinction, the Prābhākara view is often touted as a radically contextualist approach. For instance, Abhinavagupta, who lived after the highly influential Śālikanātha, characterizes the Prābhākara position as one on which there is no distinction between primary meaning, secondary meaning, or suggestion. He says that their view is that the meaning of the word is simply its final result (1.4b The Eye, DL). He points, however, out that the Prābhākara Mīmāṃsā must accept different kinds of statements in the Vedas for exegetical purposes—some more direct than others—and thus they should have no problem in principle allowing for suggested meaning.