Verse 1134

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

सङ्ख्याऽपि सामायिक्येव कल्प्यते हि विवक्षया ।
भेदाभेदविवेकेपि दारादिविपिनादिवत् ॥ ११३४ ॥

saṅkhyā'pi sāmāyikyeva kalpyate hi vivakṣayā |
bhedābhedavivekepi dārādivipinādivat || 1134 ||

Number also is purely conventional, and is assumed through the whim of the speaker, even when there is discrimination between difference and non-difference; as is found in the case of words like ‘dārā’ (wife), etc. and ‘vipina’ (forest), etc.—(1134)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Text shows that Number also (like Gender) cannot follow the presence and absence of the real state of things:—[see verse 1134 above]

Number also is purely conventional, not real. In the case of words like ‘dārā’ (which stands for wife, and is yet treated as Masculine, and always Plural), though there is no difference (in what is denoted by this word and that denoted by other words like ‘patnī’, etc.), yet its peculiar gender (and number) has been determined by mere whim.

Thus the Reason put forward by us cannot be said to be ‘Unproven For instance, the Plural or the Singular Number of words is not always based upon the real multiplicity and singularity of things; e.g. in the case of such words as ‘dārāḥ’, ‘sikatā’, ‘varṣā’, etc.—even though there is no real multiplicity, yet they are used in the Plural Number. Similarly in the case of such words as ‘Vana’, ‘Tribhuvana’, ‘Jagat’, ‘Ṣaṇṇagarī’,—even though there is no singularity, yet they are used in the Singular Number. Hence our Reason cannot be said to be ‘Unproven’.

Nor is our Reason ‘Inconclusive’; for, if it were so, then everything would belong to everything.

Lastly, because our Reason subsists in things where the Probandum is known to be present, therefore it cannot be said to be ‘Contradictory’.—(1134)