Verse 1115-1116

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

न चेद्भेदविनिर्मुक्ते कार्त्स्न्यभेदविकल्पनम् ।
न वाक्यार्थापरिज्ञानादिदं ह्यत्र विवक्षितम् ॥ १११५ ॥
प्रथमेनैव शब्देन सर्वथा तत्प्रकाशितम् ।
नात्मा कश्चित्परित्यक्तो यादृशं तत्तथोदितम् ॥ १११६ ॥

na cedbhedavinirmukte kārtsnyabhedavikalpanam |
na vākyārthāparijñānādidaṃ hyatra vivakṣitam || 1115 ||
prathamenaiva śabdena sarvathā tatprakāśitam |
nātmā kaścitparityakto yādṛśaṃ tattathoditam || 1116 ||

If (it be said that), in regard to a thing devoid of plurality, the assumption of the alternatives of ‘entirety’ and ‘severality’ (‘plurality’) is not possible,—bitch an assertion could only proceed from ignorance of the meaning of the sentence (used by us), what we made clear was that the first word ‘blue’ itself expressed all that had to be expressed, and no part of itself was left (unexpressed).—1115-1116

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Uddyotakara has argued as follows:—“The assumption (made by the Buddhist) that ‘the object being impartite, whenever it is cognised, it is in its entirety, not in part’ is not possible; because the word ‘sarva’, (‘entire ‘whole’), is applied to things not-one (several), while the word ‘eka’ is applicable to the part.”

Anticipating this argument, the Author provides the following answer to it:—[see verses 1115-1116 above]

‘Devoid of plurality’—i.e, the thing without parts.

‘The assumption, etc. etc.’,—the assumption of the alternatives—viz.: whether what figures as the object of the cognition is the thing in its entirety, or in parts.

This assertion proceeds from ignorance of what our statement means. For instance, what is meant by our statement that ‘by the very first word ‘blue’ the thing has been expressed in its entirety’ is as follows:—What has been expressed is the thing exactly as it stands, and no aspect of it has been left out, for the denoting of which the word ‘lotus’ would be required; because the thing has no parts.—Such being our meaning, the argument urged by Uddyotakara is in the nature of Verbal Casuistry (attributing a meaning to our statement never intended by us).—(1115-1116)