Verse 989-994

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

नागौर्गौरिति शब्दार्थः कस्माच्चापोह इष्यते ।
केन ह्यगोत्वमासक्तं गौर्येनैतदपोह्यते ॥ ९८९ ॥
अगोरपोहो यश्चायं गवि शब्दार्थ उच्यते ।
स किं गोर्व्यतिरिक्तो वाऽव्यतिरिक्त उपेयते ॥ ९९० ॥
विभिन्नोऽप्याश्रितो वा स्यादथवा स्यादनाश्रितः ।
आश्रितत्वे गुणः प्राप्तो न द्रव्यवचनं ततः ॥ ९९१ ॥
अतो गौरितिशब्देन गुणमात्राभिधानतः ।
सामानाधिकरण्यं स्यान्न गौर्गच्छति तिष्ठति ॥ ९९२ ॥
अथानाश्रित एवायं यद्यर्थस्तस्य को भवेत् ।
येनासौ प्रतिषेधायागोरिति व्यपदिश्यते ॥ ९९३ ॥
अथ चाव्यतिरिक्तोऽयमन्यापोहस्त्वयेष्यते ।
गौरेवायमतः प्राप्तः किमुक्तमधिकं ततः ॥ ९९४ ॥

nāgaurgauriti śabdārthaḥ kasmāccāpoha iṣyate |
kena hyagotvamāsaktaṃ gauryenaitadapohyate || 989 ||
agorapoho yaścāyaṃ gavi śabdārtha ucyate |
sa kiṃ gorvyatirikto vā'vyatirikta upeyate || 990 ||
vibhinno'pyāśrito vā syādathavā syādanāśritaḥ |
āśritatve guṇaḥ prāpto na dravyavacanaṃ tataḥ || 991 ||
ato gauritiśabdena guṇamātrābhidhānataḥ |
sāmānādhikaraṇyaṃ syānna gaurgacchati tiṣṭhati || 992 ||
athānāśrita evāyaṃ yadyarthastasya ko bhavet |
yenāsau pratiṣedhāyāgoriti vyapadiśyate || 993 ||
atha cāvyatirikto'yamanyāpohastvayeṣyate |
gaurevāyamataḥ prāptaḥ kimuktamadhikaṃ tataḥ || 994 ||

“Why is the denotation of the word (‘cow’) held to be the Apoha—in the form ‘the cow is not non-cow’? Who has ever attributed the character of the non-cow to the cow—that it is denied here?—It is held that it is the ‘exclusion of the non-cow’ in the cow, which forms the denotation of the word;—is this held to be something different from the cow? Or non-different?—If it is different, does it abide—or not abide—anywhere? If it does abide, then it becomes a quality, and the word cannot be denotative of the substance;—and thus as the word ‘cow’ would denote only a quality, there would be no co-ordination in such expressions as ‘the cow moves’, ‘the cow stands—if it does not abide in any thing, then what would be the sense in which it could be mentioned, for the purpose of exclusion, by the term ‘agoḥ’, ‘of the non-cow’?—If, lastly, the ‘Apoha’, ‘exclusion of others’ is held by you to be non-different (from the cow),—then it comes to be the same as cow; what more would, in that case, be expressed (by the term ‘Apoha’)?”—(989-994)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

“Further, Apoha, Exclusion, being an Action, it behoves you to point out its object (i.e. the object excluded). That is to say, you explain ‘Apoha’ as ‘not being the non-Cow’; now is this object of the Apoha, the Cow or the non-Cow?—If it pertains to the Cow, how can there be negation of the Cow in the Cow itself?—If, on the other hand, it pertains to the non-Cow, how can the Apoha or Exclusion of one thing (non-Cow) lead to the comprehension of another thing (the Cow)? Certainly, when the Khadira tree is cut, the cutting does not fall upon the Palāśa tree.—Further, if the phrase ‘the Cow is not the non-Cow’ is explained as the negation, in the Cow, of the non-Cow,—then you should explain who has ever conceived of the Cow as the non-Cow,—which conception would be negatived by the said Apoha?”

The Arguer regards the first two alternatives as irrelevant, hence he sets forth the third alternative [that there is preclusion, in the Cow, of the non-Cow]:—[see verses 989-994 above]

The particle ‘ca’ (in Text, 989) has the collective sense; what is meant by the sentence is—why do you assert the denotation of the word ‘Cow’ to be the Apoha in the form of ‘Not non-Cow’?

‘Why should it not be so asserted’? (asks the Buddhist).

The answer is—‘Who has, etc. etc.’

“For the following reason also Apoha cannot be accepted:—Because none of the alternatives possible under that theory is admissible: The Apoha, or Exclusion, of the non-Cow in the Cow,—is this (A) Different, or (B) Non-different—(from the Cow)?—(A) If it is different; (a) does it abide (in the Cow)? Or (6) does it not abide in it?—(a) If it does abide in it, then, inasmuch as it abides in it, it becomes a Quality; that is, the word ‘Cow’ denotes a Quality, and not the Substance, the animal, Cow; and tinder the circumstances, there can be no such Co-ordination as that expressed in the words ‘the Cow is standing’, ‘the Cow is moving’,—(b) If, on the other hand, it does not abide in it, then what is the significance of the Genitive ending in the phrase ‘agoḥ apohaḥ’ (‘the Apoha of the non-Cow’)?—(B) If, lastly, the Apoha is non-different from the Cow, then it is the same as the Cow, and the postulating of it is entirely futile.”—(989-994)