Verse 1107-1108

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

नीलजातिर्गुणो वाऽपि नीलशब्देन चेद्गतः ।
अन्येन्दीवरजातिस्तु व्यवसेयोत्पलश्रुतेः ॥ ११०७ ॥
एवं सति तयोर्भेदाद्बकुलोत्पलशब्दवत् ।
सामानाधिकरण्यादि सुतरां नोपपद्यते ॥ ११०८ ॥

nīlajātirguṇo vā'pi nīlaśabdena cedgataḥ |
anyendīvarajātistu vyavaseyotpalaśruteḥ || 1107 ||
evaṃ sati tayorbhedādbakulotpalaśabdavat |
sāmānādhikaraṇyādi sutarāṃ nopapadyate || 1108 ||

If the universal ‘blue’, or the quality blue, is denoted by the word ‘blue’, then the word ‘lotus’ (pronounced with that word) should denote another universal ‘lotus’;—such being the case, there would be difference between the two words, just as there is between the words ‘bakula’ (a kind of flower) and ‘utpala’ (lotus); so that any co-ordination, etc. between them will be all the more impossible.—(1107-1108)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged by the other party:—“The word ‘blue’ does not denote a particular substance; it denotes either the quality called ‘Blue’ or the Universal ‘Blue’ inhering in that quality; the word ‘lotus’ also denotes the Universal ‘Lotus’, not any particular substance; hence, as the two words denote two different things, it is only right that there should be a need for the word ‘lotus’ (after the utterance of the word ‘blue’).”

The answer to this is as follows—[see verses 1107-1108 above]

The compound ‘anyendīvarajāti’ is to be taken as a Karmādhāraya,—‘anyā’ qualifying ‘indīvarajātiḥ’.

‘Vyavaseyā’—i.e. should be denoted.

‘Utpalaśruteḥ’—has the Ablative ending.

Thus under this theory co-ordination would be all the more impossible; since, like the words ‘bakula’ and ‘utpala’, the words ‘blue’ and ‘lotus’ would not be applicable to the same thing. There can be no such expression as ‘bakulam utpalam—(1107-1108)