Verse 893-894

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

तत्रास्त्यर्थोऽभिधेयोऽयं किं स्वलक्षणमिष्यते ।
जातिर्योगोऽथ यद्वाऽन्य(त्) बुद्धेर्वा प्रतिबिम्बकम् ॥ ८९३ ॥
एते स्वदोषाः पूर्वोक्ता अस्त्यर्थे केवलेऽपि च ।
प्रतिपाद्ये न भेदेन व्यवहारोऽवकल्पते ॥ ८९४ ॥

tatrāstyartho'bhidheyo'yaṃ kiṃ svalakṣaṇamiṣyate |
jātiryogo'tha yadvā'nya(t) buddhervā pratibimbakam || 893 ||
ete svadoṣāḥ pūrvoktā astyarthe kevale'pi ca |
pratipādye na bhedena vyavahāro'vakalpate || 894 ||

What is expressed by the verb ‘to be’ is said to be denoted by words;—is it meant to be the ‘specific individuality’ of things? or the ‘universal’? Or the contact? Or something else which reflects the cognition?—The objections to everyone of these alternatives have been already set forth above. further, as for what is expressed by the verb ‘to be’, which has been held to form the import of words,—there can be no diverse usage based upon that.—(893-894)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Author now proceeds to refute the various theories (regarding the Import of Words, that have been set forth in Texts 887-892):—[see verses 893-894 above]

If ‘what is expressed by the Verb to be’ is held to be of the nature of what has been expounded before,—then it is open to the same objections that have been previously set forth.—Further, as no definite form can be conceived of in regard to ‘what is expressed by the verb to be’,—if that alone were denoted by Words, there could be no such divergent usage of words as ‘Cow’, gavaya’, ‘Elephant’ and so forth; as these animals would not be denoted by the words at all.—(893-894)

The following text anticipates the answer of the other party—[see verse 895 next]