Verse 957-959

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

अपोहमात्रवाच्यत्वं यदिहाभ्युपगम्यते ।
नीलोत्पलादिशब्देषु शबलार्थाभिधायिषु ॥ ९६७ ॥
विशेषणविशेष्यत्वसामानाधिकरण्ययोः ।
न सिद्धिर्न ह्यनीलत्वव्युदासेऽनुत्पलच्युतिः ॥ ९६८ ॥
नापि तत्रेतरस्तस्मान्न विशेष्यविशेषणे ।
शब्दयोर्नापि ते स्यातामभिधेयानपेक्षयोः ॥ ९६९ ॥

apohamātravācyatvaṃ yadihābhyupagamyate |
nīlotpalādiśabdeṣu śabalārthābhidhāyiṣu || 967 ||
viśeṣaṇaviśeṣyatvasāmānādhikaraṇyayoḥ |
na siddhirna hyanīlatvavyudāse'nutpalacyutiḥ || 968 ||
nāpi tatretarastasmānna viśeṣyaviśeṣaṇe |
śabdayornāpi te syātāmabhidheyānapekṣayoḥ || 969 ||

“It is held that what is denoted is Apoha only; under this theory, there can be no possibility of the relation of qualification and qualified or of co-ordination, in the case of such verbal expressions as ‘blue-lotus’, which have a mixed connotation; because the ‘exclusion of the non-blue’ does not involve the ‘exclusion of the non-lotus’,—nor does the latter involve the former, hence the relation of qualification and qualified is not possible (between the blue colour and the lotus).—Nor would the said relation be possible between the words apart from what they denote.”—[Ślokavārtika-Apoha 115-117]—(967-969)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

“With a view to explaining these,—the relation of qualification and qualified and the co-ordination,—the Bauddha has made the following statement:—“Words denote diverse things on account of the diversity of the things ‘excluded’; they are ineffective in the matter of their own diversity. They become the qualification and the qualified when bringing about the same effect; and the difference being based upon that fact alone, it is not abandoned by their own Commonalty; and yet the said difference has not been asserted, as there is doubt regarding it; and when the two are equal and similar, then they serve the same purpose”.

The following Text proceeds to show that all this cannot be right:—[see verse 967-969 above]

What was rejected before was the possibility of the relation of qualification and qualified between the things denoted; what is rejected now is the same relation between words; hence there is no repetition.

The relation of qualification and qualified consists in each of the two serving to differentiate the other; and this is held to be present only in a number of words connected together,—such as ‘Blue lotus It appears also in the case of expressions where the terms are not co-ordinated; e.g. in the expression ‘King’s officer It is said to be a case of ‘co-ordination’ when two words, having different connotations, are applied to the same object; such ‘co-ordination’ is held to be present only in compounds like ‘Blue-lotus’,

Now in regard to such verbal expression as ‘Blue-lotus,’ and the like,—whose connotation is mixed,—there is ‘co-ordination’,—and this would not be possible under the Apoha-theory.

‘Mixed connotation’—i.e. a connotation of mixed character. As declared in the statement—‘The Blue-lotus is neither Blue only nor the Lotus only, because what is denoted is the combination of both’.

Question:—Why is this not possible under the Apoha-theory?

Answer:—‘Because, etc. etc.’, Because on the ‘exclusion of the nonblue’, there is no ‘exclusion of the non-lotus’, Nor does the latter—i.e.‘Exclusion of the non-Lotus’—involve the former—i.e. the ‘exclusion of the non-blue—[In some texts, the reading is ‘itarā’ for ‘itaraḥ’; where the Feminine form may be taken as with reference to the term ‘Cyutiḥ’; ‘itarā’ thus standing for the ‘Cyuti’ exclusion, of the Non-Blue].—What is meant is that these two do not stand in the relation of container and contained, because both are featureless. And when there is no relation, there can be no relation of qualification and qualified; if there were, we would be landed in absurdities.

What is meant by this is that under your theory there can be no mixed connotation, as all words denote mere negation; and hence the relation of qualification and qualified is not possible.

It might be argued that—‘there may be no relation of qualification and qualified between what are denoted by the words,—why should it not subsist between the words themselves?’

The answer to this is—‘Nor would, etc. etc.’, that is, it is only through their denotations that the relation of qualification and qualified becomes attributed to the words; hence when the said relation is not possible between what are denoted, how can there be any attributing of it to the denotative words?—(967-969)