Verse 1013-1015

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

साक्षादाकार एतस्मिन्नेवं च प्रतिपादिते ।
प्रसज्यप्रतिषेधोऽपि सामर्थ्येन प्रतीयते ॥ १०१३ ॥
न तदात्मा परात्मेति सम्बन्धे सति वस्तुभिः ।
व्यावृत्तवस्त्वधिगमोऽप्यर्थादेव भवत्यतः ॥ १०१४ ॥
तेनायमपि शब्दस्य स्वार्थ इत्युपचर्यते ।
न तु साक्षादयं शाब्दो द्विविधोऽपोह उच्यते ॥ १०१५ ॥

sākṣādākāra etasminnevaṃ ca pratipādite |
prasajyapratiṣedho'pi sāmarthyena pratīyate || 1013 ||
na tadātmā parātmeti sambandhe sati vastubhiḥ |
vyāvṛttavastvadhigamo'pyarthādeva bhavatyataḥ || 1014 ||
tenāyamapi śabdasya svārtha ityupacaryate |
na tu sākṣādayaṃ śābdo dvividho'poha ucyate || 1015 ||

The direct form (of Apoha) having been explained as above, absolute negation also is apprehended by implication,—in the form that the nature of this thing is not the nature of the other thing.—When there is connection (of the word) with certain things, there comes about, by implication, the apprehension of ‘excluded’ things also.—Hence this also is figuratively spoken of as the ‘denotation’ of the word,—these two kinds of verbal Apoha are not directly spoken of as such.—(1013-1015)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been shown that Apoha, in the form of ‘Reflection’, being brought about directly by words, forms the primary denotation of words. The Author now proceeds to show that there would be nothing incongruous in describing the other two kinds of Apoha (described under 1007-1008) as forming the secondary (indirect) ‘denotation of words’:—[see verse 1013-1015 above]

‘As above’,—as something brought about.

Question:—“How is Absolute Negation apprehended by implication?”

Answer;—That the nature, etc. etc.—That is, on the basis of the fact that the nature of this thing—the reflection of the Cow—is not the nature of the other thing—the reflection of the Horse and other things.

Having thus shown that the notion of the Apoha in the shape of Absolute Negation forms, on the ground of invariable concomitance, the secondary denotation of words, the Author proceeds to assert the same in regard to ‘Specific Individuality’ also:—‘When there is connection, etc. etc?;—the ‘connection’ of the Word with the object meant here is the indirect one of invariable concomitance in the shape of that of Cause and Effect; in the following way:—First of all there is the apprehension of the object as it stands; then the speaker’s desire to speak of it; then the movement of his palate and other organs of Speech; then the utterance of the word; in this way when there is this indirect connection between the word and the objects spoken of—such as Fire and the like,—then there follows the cognition, through Presumption, of the object as ‘excluded from unlike things

Thus both these kinds of Apoha,—Absolute Negation and that in the form excluded from others,—are figuratively spoken of as denoted, by the word.