Verse 1078-1079

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

प्रतिभासश्च शब्दार्थ इत्याहुस्तत्त्वचिन्तकाः ।
दृश्यकल्पाविभागज्ञो लोको बाह्यं तु मन्यते ॥ १०७८ ॥
तस्यातोऽध्यवसायेन व्यक्तीनामेव वाच्यता ।
तत्त्वतश्च न शब्दानां वाच्यमस्तीति साधितम् ॥ १०७९ ॥

pratibhāsaśca śabdārtha ityāhustattvacintakāḥ |
dṛśyakalpāvibhāgajño loko bāhyaṃ tu manyate || 1078 ||
tasyāto'dhyavasāyena vyaktīnāmeva vācyatā |
tattvataśca na śabdānāṃ vācyamastīti sādhitam || 1079 ||

Discriminators of truth declare that what is denoted by the word is mere ‘reflection’. People, not knowing the distinction between what is ‘perceived’ and what is ‘fancied’ regard it to be something ‘external—as that is what is apprehended (by words), individuals are denoted by words.—In reality however there is nothing that is denoted by words,—as has been proved already.—(1078-1079)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued above (under Text 955, by Kumārila) that—“when Individuals, not being denoted, cannot be ‘excluded’, then what would be ‘excluded’ would he the Universal”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 1078-1079 above]

The reason ‘because Individuals are not denoted’ is not-admitted. Because the ‘non-denotability’ of words that we have asserted is only in view of the real aspect of things, not in regard to the illusory aspect. Under the illusory aspect, it is only Individuals that are denoted,—as is happily accepted by people wanting in true insight, and is well known; so that the Reason adduced is not-admitted.

What is ‘perceived’ is the external thing, in the shape of Specific Individuality;—what is ‘fancied’,—imaginary—is the ‘Reflection’ that figures in Determinate Conception.

If the Reason adduced by you is the real ‘non-denotability of Individuals’,—then we also do not admit of any real ‘exclusion’ of Individuals; so that in that ease your argument proves only what is already admitted by us, and is, as such, superfluous, futile.—This is what is shown by the sentence—‘In reality, etc. etc.’.—(1078-1079)