Verse 1179-1180

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

अपोह्यकल्पनायां च वरं वस्त्वेव कल्पितम् ।
इत्येतद्व्याहतं प्रोक्तं नियमेनान्यवर्जनात् ॥ ११७९ ॥
वस्त्वेव कल्प्यते तत्र यदेव हि विवक्षितम् ।
क्षेपो विवक्षितस्यातो न तु सर्वं विवक्षितम् ॥ ११८० ॥

apohyakalpanāyāṃ ca varaṃ vastveva kalpitam |
ityetadvyāhataṃ proktaṃ niyamenānyavarjanāt || 1179 ||
vastveva kalpyate tatra yadeva hi vivakṣitam |
kṣepo vivakṣitasyāto na tu sarvaṃ vivakṣitam || 1180 ||

The statement that, “rather than assume the ‘excluded’ thing it is far better to assume the thing itself”, is self-contradictory; as in every case there is ‘exclusion of some other thing’, that thing alone is assumed which is meant to be spoken of; hence there is implication of that which is meant to be spoken of; but all things are not meant to be spoken of.—(1179-1180)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued (under Text 980, by Kumārila) that—“Rather than assume the Thing ‘excluded’, it is far better to assume the thing itself”. This is answered in the following—[see verses 1179-1180 above]

‘Thing itself, etc, etc.’,—It is an Entity,—not not a non-entity—meant to be spoken of, which is assumed by us, on the basis of actual cognition, to be ‘denoted’ by the word; hence when that is apprehended, there is, through Implication, the ‘Exclusion’ of what is not meant to be spoken of; so that our explanation of the word and its denotation does not fail to apply in any case.

In fact, it is in reference exactly to those cases where doubts are likely to arise in the mind of the dull-witted person that our Teacher has made the following statement:—‘Having assumed the non-cognisable, through the exclusion of that, we have the inference of the cognisable’.—(1179-1180)