Verse 997-1000

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

अन्यापोहश्च किं वाच्यः किं वाऽवाच्योऽयमिष्यते ।
वाच्योऽपि विधिरूपेण यदि वाऽन्यनिषेधतः ॥ ९९७ ॥
विध्यात्मनाऽस्य वाच्यत्वे त्याज्यमेकान्तदर्शनम् ।
सर्वत्रान्यनिरासोऽयं शब्दार्थ इति वर्णितम् ॥ ९९८ ॥
अथापोहव्युदासेन यद्यपोहोऽभिधीयते ।
तत्र तत्रैवमिच्छायामनवस्था भवेत्ततः ॥ ९९९ ॥
अथाप्यवाच्य एवायं यद्यपोहस्त्वयेष्यते ।
तेनान्यापोहकृच्छब्द इति बाध्येत ते वचः ॥ १००० ॥

anyāpohaśca kiṃ vācyaḥ kiṃ vā'vācyo'yamiṣyate |
vācyo'pi vidhirūpeṇa yadi vā'nyaniṣedhataḥ || 997 ||
vidhyātmanā'sya vācyatve tyājyamekāntadarśanam |
sarvatrānyanirāso'yaṃ śabdārtha iti varṇitam || 998 ||
athāpohavyudāsena yadyapoho'bhidhīyate |
tatra tatraivamicchāyāmanavasthā bhavettataḥ || 999 ||
athāpyavācya evāyaṃ yadyapohastvayeṣyate |
tenānyāpohakṛcchabda iti bādhyeta te vacaḥ || 1000 ||

“This Apoha, ‘exclusion of other things’—is it itself denoted or not-denoted? Even if it is denoted, is it denoted as something positive? Or only as the ‘negation of other things’?—If it is denoted as something positive, then you should abandon your extremist view, whereby it has been asserted that ‘in every case it is the exclusion of other things that is denoted by words.’—If, on the other hand, the said ‘exclusion’ (Apoha) is denoted in the form of the ‘exclusion of other things’,—then such a view would involve an infinite regress.—If then it be held by you that the said Apoha (exclusion of other things) is not denoted, then your assertion, that ‘the word always brings about the exclusion of other things’, would become annulled.”—(997-1000)

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

“You have to be questioned—is this Apoha denoted or not denoted? If it is denoted, is it denoted as something positive? Or as the ‘exclusion of other things’?—If it is denoted as something positive, then the assertion that ‘The denotation of words consists in the exclusion of other things’ is not universally true.—If it is denoted as the ‘exclusion of other things’, then that ‘exclusion of others’ would itself have to be denoted as another ‘exclusion of other things’; and so on and on, there would be no end to it.—If then the Apoha is held to be not-denoted, then that would contradict the statement that ‘the word brings about the exclusion of what is denoted by other words’.”—(997-1000)

All this has been set forth by Uddyotakara. In answer to this, the revered Diṅnāga has declared as follows:—“In all cases, the substratum being the same, there is no disruption, and all that is desired is duly accomplished; hence in due course, all characteristics of the ‘Universal’,—such as one-ness, eternality, complete subsistence in every component—subsist in the Apoha itself. Consequently, on account of the superiority of its excellence, the only theory that is right is that ‘the denotation of words consists in the exclusion of other things’.”

In reference to this, Kumārila argues as follows, thereby summing up the arguments against the doctrine of Apoha:—[see verses 1001-1002]