Verse 965

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

वृष्टिमेघासतोर्दृष्ट्वा यद्यनैकान्तिकं वदेत् ।
वस्त्वस्त्वेवात्र मत्पक्षे भवत्पक्षेऽप्यदः कुतः ॥ ९६५ ॥

vṛṣṭimeghāsatordṛṣṭvā yadyanaikāntikaṃ vadet |
vastvastvevātra matpakṣe bhavatpakṣe'pyadaḥ kutaḥ || 965 ||

“If some one, perceiving the said relation between the nonexistent rain and the non-existent cloud, were to urge ‘inconclusiveness’ against our reason,—then, according to our view, there is an entity in the case cited also; but how could it be under your view?”—[Ślokavārtika-Apoha 109]—(965)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Objection against the above:—‘There is cognition of the absence of Bain from the absence of clouds (where both are non-entities); hence the Reason put forward is not conclusive’.

Answer:—[see verse 965 above]

On seeing that between the Rain and the Cloud both of which are non-existent, i.e. mere negations—[‘asat’ in the compound standing for the ‘abstract noun ‘asattva’, non-existence],—the relation of denotative and denoted (indicator and indicated) is present,—if the Bauddha were to argue that our Reason,—‘because they are non-entities’—is ‘Inconclusive’,—then that cannot be right; because according to our view, in this ease of the Cloud and Rain also there is an entity present, in the shape of the clean sky; because according to us Negation is an entity. For you, Bauddha, on the other hand, how could it be? That is, how could there be the relation of Indicator and Indicated in the case cited? It could not be possible at all.

The particle ‘api’, ‘also’, is misplaced; it should have come after ‘adaḥ’; so that the meaning is as follows:—It is not only in the case of the two Apohas that it is not possible for you to have the relation of Denoted and Denotative (Indicator and Indicated), it is not possible also in the case of the Rain and the Cloud.—(965)