Verse 1099-1101

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

नत्वन्यापोहवद्वस्तु वाच्यमस्माभिरिष्यते ।
व्यावृत्तादन्यतोऽभावान्नान्याद्व्यावृत्तिरस्ति नः ॥ १०९९ ॥
तत्पारतन्त्र्यदोषोयं जाताविव न संगतः ।
अवदातमिति प्रोक्ते शब्दस्यार्थेऽपृथक्त्वतः ॥ ११०० ॥
विशेषणविशेष्यत्वसामानाधिकरण्ययोः ।
तस्मादपोहे शब्दार्थे व्यवस्था न विरुध्यते ॥ ११०१ ॥

natvanyāpohavadvastu vācyamasmābhiriṣyate |
vyāvṛttādanyato'bhāvānnānyādvyāvṛttirasti naḥ || 1099 ||
tatpāratantryadoṣoyaṃ jātāviva na saṃgataḥ |
avadātamiti prokte śabdasyārthe'pṛthaktvataḥ || 1100 ||
viśeṣaṇaviśeṣyatvasāmānādhikaraṇyayoḥ |
tasmādapohe śabdārthe vyavasthā na virudhyate || 1101 ||

We do not hold that what the word denotes is the thing endowed with the ‘exclusion (Apoha) of other things’; because for us, there is no ‘exclusion’ other than the thing excluded from something else. Hence the objection that ‘it is dependent upon something else’ is not applicable to the ‘denotation of words’ as honestly explained,—in the way that it is to the theory of the ‘universal’ (being denoted by words). because there is no difference between the relation of qualification and qualified and ‘co-ordination’. Consequently there is no incongruity in the theory that it is Apoha that is denoted by words.—(1099-1101)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued (under Text 972, by Kumārila) that—“If it be asserted that what is denoted is theng endowed with the Apoha, etc. etc.”

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 1099-1101 above]

If exclusion were something entirely different from the Thing excluded, then there would be the possibility of the incongruity that has been urged against the view that ‘what is denoted is the Thing as endowed with the Apoha’. As a matter of fact however, for us, exclusion is not something different from the Thing excluded from others;—in fact, it is the excluded thing itself that is spoken of as ‘exclusion’, when what is meant to be stressed is the mere negation of other things.—Consequently, the incongruity that has been urged against the Denotation of Universals,—in the form that, if the Universal is what is primarily denoted by words, the denotation of the Thing endowed with that Universal would be dependent upon that (Universal), and consequently there being no indication of the varieties of the said Thing, there is no possibility of co-ordination or any other relationship with it,—does not apply to the theory of Apoha, as there is no denotation (under this theory) of anything equipped with the ‘Exclusion of other things’, as something different.

This is what is meant by the words ‘Hence the objection, etc. etc’.

‘Tat’—‘tasmāt’—Hence.

‘Avadātam, etc. etc.’—i.e. to the ‘denotation of words’ as expounded by the Teacher Dīṅnāga, with the purest conviction.

The grounds for this inapplicability are next stated—‘Because there is no difference, etc. etc.’.—That is, there the Denotation of words—in the shape of the ‘Exclusion of other things’—is not different from,—not anything other than—that which is excluded from others.

‘Qualification and qualified, etc. etc.’.—This is easily understood.—(1099-1101)