Verse 888

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

समुदायोऽभिधेयो वाऽप्यविकल्पसमुच्चयः ।
असत्यो वाऽपि संसर्गः शब्दार्थः कैश्चिदुच्यते ॥ ८८८ ॥

samudāyo'bhidheyo vā'pyavikalpasamuccayaḥ |
asatyo vā'pi saṃsargaḥ śabdārthaḥ kaiściducyate || 888 ||

Some people assert that what is denoted by words is (a) an aggregate free from distributive and collective determination; or (b) an unreal relationship.—(888)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Text 886 has spoken of ‘denotation of the verb to be and the like’; the term ‘and the like’ is a reference to certain other theories that have been propounded regarding the ‘Import of Words These theories are now set forth (under Texts 888 to 892):—[see verse 888 above]

(a) Some people assert that what the word—‘brāhmaṇa’ for instance—denotes is the aggregate of austerity, caste, learning, etc. without any conceptual determination either collective or distributive; just as the word ‘forest’ denotes the Dhava and other trees. That is to say, when the word ‘forest’ is uttered, the notion that appears is not a determinate or well-defined, one,—either of the Dhava or the Khadira or the Palāśa or any particular tree (distributively),—or of the Dhava and the Khadira and the Palāśa and other trees (collectively);—it is only a vague indefinite conception of the Dhava and other trees in general;—similarly when the word ‘brāhmaṇa’ is uttered, the notion that appears is not a well-defined one—either of Austerity or Caste or Learning, (distributively), or Austerity and Caste and Learning (collectively); what are cognised are Austerity and the rest conceived of as one aggregated whole as differentiated from other correlatives.—The term ‘vikalpa’ (in the Text) stands for the distinct conception of any one individual from among a group consisting of an indefinite number of individuals; and ‘Samuchaya’ stands for the distinct conception of a definite number of individuals related together;—and the notion brought about by words is free from both these conceptions.

(b) Others however have held that what is denoted by the word is the relation of a thing—substance, f.i.—to an undefined ‘Universal’—‘Substance’, f.i.;—and this is said to be ‘unreal’ because the individual correlatives are not really denoted by the word.—Or, it may be that, like the dark complexion and other properties, Austerity, Caste, etc. also appear in the notion as a single unity,—and hence it is the relationship of these that is called ‘unreal’. Because these are not really apprehended together in their own forms; what is apprehended is only the aggregate of these perceived like the whirling fire-brand, without reference to the individuals making lip the aggregate.—(888)