Verse 1109-1110

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

गुणतज्जातिसम्बद्धं द्रव्यं चेत्प्रतिपाद्यते ।
नीलशब्देन यद्येवं व्यर्था स्यादुत्पलश्रुतिः ॥ ११०९ ॥
ताभ्यां यदेव सम्बद्धं तदेवोत्पलजातिमत् ।
नीलश्रुत्यैव तत्रोक्तं व्यर्था नीलोत्पलश्रुतिः ॥ १११० ॥

guṇatajjātisambaddhaṃ dravyaṃ cetpratipādyate |
nīlaśabdena yadyevaṃ vyarthā syādutpalaśrutiḥ || 1109 ||
tābhyāṃ yadeva sambaddhaṃ tadevotpalajātimat |
nīlaśrutyaiva tatroktaṃ vyarthā nīlotpalaśrutiḥ || 1110 ||

If it is the substance related to the quality and the universal that is denoted by the word ‘blue’, then the word ‘lotus’ would be useless. as what is related to the said two factors (quality and universal) is exactly what is equipped with the universal ‘lotus’; and as this will have been already expressed by the word ‘blue’, the word ‘lotus’ would be useless.—(1109-1110)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged by the other party:—“Though the word ‘blue’ denotes a particular Universal and a particular Quality, yet, through those, it also denotes the substance related to the Blue Quality and the ‘Blue’ Universal;—similarly the word ‘lotus’, through the Universal ‘Lotus’, denotes the substance;—in this way their application to the same thing being possible, there would be co-ordination between them; which would not be possible in the case of the words ‘bakula’ and ‘utpala’.”

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 1109-1110 above]

‘The Quality’—called ‘blue’;—the ‘Universal’—as the Universal ‘blue’; that which is related to these is ‘Guṇatajjātisambaddham’,

‘The word Lotus would be useless’,—as the substance will have been already expressed by the word ‘blue’. This is explained by the words—

‘As what is related, etc. etc.’;—‘the two factors’ are the Quality and the Universal.

The following might be urged (by the other party)—“Even though the word ‘blue’ denotes the substance possessing that quality and belonging to that Uni versa’,—yet, inasmuch as the word ‘blue’ has been found to be applicable to several substances, the man who hears the word pronounced does not obtain any definite idea of the Lotus, specifically;—as the Cuckoo and other things are also ‘blue’; hence, the use of the word ‘lotus’ becomes useful, in that it serves to dispel the suspicion that other substances might be meant”.

This is not right; as this assertion is made because the person making it does not know the subject under consideration. The subject under discussion is that under the theory that words denote positive things, there can be no co-ordination, etc. If then, the word ‘lotus’ is used only for the dispelling of the said suspicion,—and not for the denoting of a substance,—then, in that case, a positive entity would not form the denotation of the word; as all that the word ‘lotus’ will have done would be the dispelling of the form wrongly imposed upon it. Then again, it is a self-contradictory statement that is made, when it is asserted that “the word ‘blue’ denotes the substance Lotus” and yet “there is no certainty produced in the mind of the hearer”. That cannot form the denotation of a word, in regard to which no certainty is produced. If it did, that would lead to absurdities. Nor again is there any room for suspicion in what has been cognised with certainty as ‘Certain Cognition’ and ‘Uncertain Cognition’ are mutually destructive.

It might be said that—“Even though the words Blue and Lotus are not applicable to the same thing, yet what are denoted by them—viz. the Quality and the Universal—do subsist in the same substance,—and hence through their denotations, there would be co-ordination between them.”

This cannot be right; as it would lead to absurd contingencies. In the manner stated, there would be co-ordination between the words ‘Colour’ and ‘Taste’ also; as what are denoted by them—i.e. Colour and Taste—subsist in the same substance, Earth. Further (under the explanation offered) there would be no possibility of the expression ‘blue lotus’ bringing about the cognition of a single thing; as the two words would be separately denoting the Quality and the Universal subsisting in the single substance; and unless the words bring about the cognition of the same thing, there can be no co-ordination between them.—Enough of this!—(1109-1110)