Verse 943-944

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

सिद्धश्चागौरपोह्येत गोनिषेधात्मकश्च सः ।
तत्र गौरेव वक्तव्यो नञा यः प्रतिषिध्यते ॥ ९४३ ॥
स चेदगोनिवृत्त्यात्मा भवेदन्योन्यसंश्रयः ।
सिद्धश्चेद्गौरपोहांर्थ वृथाऽपोहप्रकल्पनम् ॥ ९४४ ॥

siddhaścāgaurapohyeta goniṣedhātmakaśca saḥ |
tatra gaureva vaktavyo nañā yaḥ pratiṣidhyate || 943 ||
sa cedagonivṛttyātmā bhavedanyonyasaṃśrayaḥ |
siddhaścedgaurapohāṃrtha vṛthā'pohaprakalpanam || 944 ||

It is only a well-established entity in the shape of the non-cow that could be excluded by the Apoha (denoted by the word ‘cow’);—and the non-cow is of the nature of the negation of the cow;—hence it has to be explained what this cow is which is negatived (in the non-cow).—If this cow is of the nature of the negation of the non-cow, then there is mutual interdependence.—If the cow is admitted as an entity for the sake of the Apoha, then the postulating of the Apoha becomes futile.”—[Ślokavārtika-Apoha 83-84]—(943-944)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following text shows that no Convention could be made regarding the Apoha, as it would involve mutual interdependence:—[see verses 943-944 above]

The Cow is apprehended through the ‘exclusion of the non-Cow’;—the ‘non-Cow’ is of the nature of the negation of the Cow;—hence the second term in the word ‘non-Cow’ has got to be explained, which is negatived by the negative particle in the word ‘non-Cow’; there can be no negation of anything, the exact nature of which is not known.

It might he argued that—‘what is it that has to be explained? It is already known that the Cow is of the nature of the negation of the non-Cow.’

The answer to that is—‘If this Cow, etc. etc.’;—‘this’ stands for the Cow. Thus then, the Cow being of the nature of the negation of the non-Cow, it could be apprehended only through the apprehension of the non-Cow;—and the non-Cow being of the nature of the negation of the Cow, it could be apprehended only through the apprehension of the Cow;—thus this would be a clear case of mutual interdependence.

It might be argued that—‘The Cow that is negatived by the word non-cow is a well-established positive entity, for the sake of Apoha,—i.e. for the fulfilment of the Apoha in the shape of the exclusion of the non-cow,—so that there would be no interdependence.

The answer to this is—‘If the cow is an established entity, etc. etc.’;—That is, if that be so, then it is useless to assume that Apoha forms the denotation of all words; inasmuch as you admit the import of words to consist of a positive entity. Consequently (to be consistent) you should not admit of any positive entity to be denoted by a word; and if you do not admit it, then the objectionable ‘interdependence’ becomes inevitable.—(943-944)