Verse 956

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

नापोह्यत्वमभावानामभावाभाववर्जनात् ।
व्यक्तोऽपोहान्तरापोहस्तस्मात्सामान्यवस्तुनः ॥ ९५६ ॥

nāpohyatvamabhāvānāmabhāvābhāvavarjanāt |
vyakto'pohāntarāpohastasmātsāmānyavastunaḥ || 956 ||

“Mere negations cannot be objects of ‘exclusion’,—for, if they were, they would lose their negative character. consequently, it is clear that when there is an ‘exclusion’ (Apoha) of another ‘exclusion’ (Apoha), it can be only of a positive entity in the shape of the commonalty (or universal).”—[Ślokavārtika-Apoha 96]—(956)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It might be asked—‘if the Commonalty (or Universal) were excluded,—even so, how could that establish it as an entity?’.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 956 above]

‘Negations’—i.e. Apohas, Exclusions.

If there were exclusions of these Exclusions, they would be positive entities.

The reason for this is set forth—‘For if they were, etc. etc.’—That is, the negative character would be abandoned by those exclusions. What is meant is as follows If Exclusions were excluded, then their negative character would be denied; and when there is this denial, the Negations would abandon their negative character; and thence the Negations in the shape of the Exclusions having abandoned their negative character, they would become positive entities.—This is the explanation given by some people.

Others explain the words of the text ‘abhāvābhāvavarjanāt’ to mean ‘because there can be no negation of negations’; i.e. it is not right that ‘Exclusions’ (Apohas) which are negative should be ‘excluded’; because all ‘exclusion’ (denial) is of the positive entity.

From all this it is clear that when there is (exclusion) of one Apoha, the Cow, in another Apoha, the Horse,—it could be an exclusion of the ‘Universal’ only. It is established therefore that the Universal, being the object of ‘Exclusion’, must be a positive entity.—(956)