Verse 970

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

सामानाधिकरण्यं च न भिन्नत्वादपोहयोः ।
अर्थतश्चेत्तदिष्येत कीदृश्याधेयता तयोः ॥ ९७० ॥

sāmānādhikaraṇyaṃ ca na bhinnatvādapohayoḥ |
arthataścettadiṣyeta kīdṛśyādheyatā tayoḥ || 970 ||

“Co-ordination is not possible, as the Apohas are different.—if it be held to subsist on the basis of what is denoted, then what sort of ‘subsistence’ would there be between the two?”—[Ślokavārtika-Apoha 118]—(970)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Kumārila now proceeds to deny ‘co-ordination’—[see verse 970 above]

It is only when two words are applied to the same object that there is ‘co-ordination’ between them; and (under the Apoha-theory) it is not possible for the words ‘blue’ and ‘lotus’ to apply to the same object; because what are denoted by them are, respectively, ‘the exclusion of the non-blue’ and ‘the exclusion of the non-lotus’,—and these two are distinct. For instance, it has been asserted by yourself that ‘words have diverse denotations because the things excluded by them are diverse’, The argument may be formulated as follows:—Words like ‘Blue Lotus’ cannot form the object of co-ordination, because they pertain to different things, like the words ‘jar’, ‘cloth’ and so forth.

It might be argued that ‘the exclusion of non-blue also stands where there is exclusion of non-lotus; and thus the Apohas denoted by the two words may be applied to the same thing; and hence, through these denotations, co-ordination may be said to lie between the words also’, ‘Tat’ stands for co-ordination.

The answer to this is—‘What sort of subsistence, etc. etc.’—‘Tayoḥ—‘between the two’,—i.e. between the ‘Exclusion of the non-blue’ and the ‘Exclusion of the non-lotus That is to say, there can be no real subsistence in these; as what is formless cannot subsist anywhere, like the ‘son of the Barren Woman—(970)