Verse 1120-1121

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

प्रतिबिम्बं तु शब्देन क्रमेणैवोपजन्यते ।
एकत्वेन च तद्भाति बाह्यत्वेन च विभ्रमात् ॥ ११२० ॥
सामानाधिकरण्यादि प्रतिबिम्बानुरोधतः ।
परमार्थेन शब्दास्तु मता निर्विषया इमे ॥ ११२१ ॥

pratibimbaṃ tu śabdena krameṇaivopajanyate |
ekatvena ca tadbhāti bāhyatvena ca vibhramāt || 1120 ||
sāmānādhikaraṇyādi pratibimbānurodhataḥ |
paramārthena śabdāstu matā nirviṣayā ime || 1121 ||

What is produced by the word, in due course, is only the reflection; and it is through delusion that this appears as one and as external. The co-ordination and other relations are due to the reflection. In reality, all these words are held to be objectless.—(1120-1121)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Question:—“Why is not the objection regarding the absence of coordination applicable to the view under which the denotation of words is ‘illusory’?”

Answer:—[see verses 1120-1121 above]

When the word ‘blue’ is uttered, what it brings about first of all is the conceptual Reflection, excluded (differentiated) from all non-blue things, and scintillating over the Lotus and other (blue) things and hence not excluding these latter, and conceived (objectively) in the external form; then when subsequently, the word ‘Lotus’ is uttered, what it brings about is the conceptual Reflection, excluded from all that is non-lotus, and with the form of only one externalng superimposed upon it;—in this way, in due course, there is brought about an illusory (conjunct) conceptual Reflection, excluded from the ‘non-blue’ and the ‘non-lotus’, with the one external form imposed upon it;—and it is in consequence of this that an illusory co-ordination becomes possible.

“Why is it not so, in reality?”

Answer:—In reality, all these words are held to be objectless.—(1120-1121)