Verse 1061-1062

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

अगोभिन्नं च यद्वस्तु तदक्षैर्व्यवसीयते ।
प्रतिबिम्बं तदध्यस्तं स्वसंवित्त्याऽवगम्यते ॥ १०६१ ॥
इदं दृष्ट्वा च लेकेन शब्दस्तत्र प्रयुज्यते ।
संबन्धानुभवोऽप्यस्य व्यक्तं तेनोपपद्यते ॥ १०६२ ॥

agobhinnaṃ ca yadvastu tadakṣairvyavasīyate |
pratibimbaṃ tadadhyastaṃ svasaṃvittyā'vagamyate || 1061 ||
idaṃ dṛṣṭvā ca lekena śabdastatra prayujyate |
saṃbandhānubhavo'pyasya vyaktaṃ tenopapadyate || 1062 ||

That thing which is ‘different from the non-cow’ is certainly apprehended by the sense-organs; the reflection also which is superimposed upon it is apprehended by its own cognition. it is on noticing this that people use the word; the recognition of its relation also becomes clearly explained on the same basis.—(1061-1062)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued above (under Text, 939, by Kumārila) that—“The Exclusion of the non-Cow is not apprehended, at first, by the Sense-organs, etc etc”.

The following Texts show that this statement is not admissible:—[see verses 1061-1062 above]

The Apoha in the shape of the ‘Specific Individuality’ is apprehended through the sense-organs themselves.

As for the Apoha in the form of the Reflection of what is denoted by the Word, it is really of the nature of Cognition itself, and as such vouched for directly by its own cognition (it being self-cognised).

The particle ‘ca’ is meant to include the Apohas not directly mentioned. So that the Apoha in the form of Absolute Negation also is apprehended by implication; as has been shown under the Text 1014, by the words ‘the nature of one is not the nature of the other

Thus it is on noticing the Apoha in the form of ‘Specific Individuality’ and the rest, that people come to use words,—not on noticing a positive entity in the shape of the Universal; because no such Universal exists and because no such Universal figures in any cognition. And that through perceiving which people use the words must also be the basis upon which rests the relations of those words,—not on any other basis; if it did, it would lead to absurdity.—(1061-1062)