Verse 917

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

(नेष्टोऽसाधारणात्मा वो) विशेषो निर्विकल्पनात् ।
तथा च शाबलेयादिरसामान्यप्रसङ्गतः ॥ ९१७ ॥
तस्मात्सर्बेषु यद्रूपं प्रत्येकं परिनिष्ठितम् ।
गोबुद्धिस्तन्निमित्ता स्या........स्ति तत् ॥ ९१८ ॥

(neṣṭo'sādhāraṇātmā vo) viśeṣo nirvikalpanāt |
tathā ca śābaleyādirasāmānyaprasaṅgataḥ || 917 ||
tasmātsarbeṣu yadrūpaṃ pratyekaṃ pariniṣṭhitam |
gobuddhistannimittā syā........sti tat || 918 ||

“You do not admit of any individuality in the nature of something uncommon (unique), because it is devoid of conceptual content; so also (you do not admit) the ‘variegated animal’ and the like; as in that case the import would not be universal (common).—Hence the idea of the ‘cow’ must be based upon that form which subsists in common in every single individual (cow); [and in this there can be no dispute between us].”—[Ślokavārtika-Apoha 3 & 10]—(917-918)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Bauddha might say—What is to be said? What we mean is none other than the ‘Specific Individuality’ of the Cow.

“The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 917-918 above]

That which is the unique (uncommon) Individuality is not held by you to constitute the ‘negation of Horse and other non-cows’;—why?—because it is devoid of conceptual content (or determination); that is, all determination ceases in it; it is only the Common Universal that is held to form the object of determination (conceptual thought); while that entity which is uncommon, unique is beyond all determination; as declared in the following words—‘What is perceptible by the senses is the self-cognisable, inexplicable form’, The ground for regarding anything as an Individual consists in its uncommon (unique) character; hence what is meant by the words of the Text is ‘that which is an Individuality by reason of its uncommon character

Hitherto the Text has made only a general statement. It reasserts same thing in reference to a particular instance—‘So also, etc. etc.’:—that is, just as you do not admit of the Import of the word ‘Cow’ to consist in any unique individual in the shape of the ‘negation of the Horse and other nom cows’, so also you do not admit of any positive entity in the form of the ‘negation of the Horse, etc.’ as forming the Import of such words as the ‘variegated cow’ and the like.—Why not?—Because in that case the Import would not be universal;—that is, if it were so admitted, then, the Universal could never form the Import of the word; as it would have no connection with the word. Because it is so, therefore there can be no common entity in the shape of the ‘negation of the Horse, etc.’; consequently the conclusion must be that the idea of ‘Cow’ is based upon that character which resides completely in each one of the members of the same class—the variegated and other cows; and this can be only the Universal ‘Cow’,—If you speak of this same as the ‘negation of the non-cow’, then the difference is only in name and your proposition thus is open to the charge of being ‘superfluous’,—(917-918)