Tattva Sangraha Vol 1

SR No.: 007608
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1937
Total Pages: 753
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 42 MB

Page 516

EXAMINATION OF THE IMPORT OF WORDS.
521
for the words 'blue' and 'lotus' to apply to the same object; because what are denoted by them are, respectively, the exclusion of the non-blue and the exclusion of the non-lotus, - and these two are distinct. For instance, it has been asserted by yourself that words have diverse denotations because the things excluded by them are diverse'. The argument may be formulated as follows:-Words like Blue Lotus' cannot form the object of co-ordination, because they pertain to different things, like the words 'jar, cloth' and so forth.
It might be argued that the exclusion of non-blue also stands where there is exclusion of non-lotus; and thus the Apohas denoted by the two words may be applied to the same thing; and hence, through these denotations, co-ordination may be said to lie between the words also'. Tat stands for co-ordination.
The answer to this is- What sort of subsistence, etc. etc. - Tayoh* between the two'. -i.e. between the 'Exclusion of the non-blue' and the 'Exclusion of the non-lotus'. That is to say, there can be no real subsistence in these : as what is formless cannot subsist anywhere, like the son of the Barren Woman (970)
Then again, there may be some sort of subsistence in the case of things like the Blue and the Lotus; but even though present, it could not be expressed by words.-This is shown in the following
TEXT (971).
" AS A MATTER OF FACT, NOTHING UNCOMMON 'IS EVER APPREHENDED AND ANYTHING ELSE DOES NOT EXIST FOR YOU. WHERE THEN WOULD BE THE USE OF THE CO-ORDINATION OF WORDS, WHICH IS NOT APPREHENDED AT ALL ?"
(Shlo. Vā. Apoha 119]-(971)
COMMENTARY
No uncommon thing in the shape of the Blue Lotus and the like is ever apprehended throngh words, because all conceptions are absent therein, - as has been declared (by the Apohist).- Under the circumstances when the thing which is the substratum is not known, how can the subsistence of the Apohas subsisting therein be cognised ? That is, the cognition of the property is concomitant with that wherein the property subsists.
It might be argued that as there is a substratum of these Apohas which is entirely different from the Uncommon Entity, the said objection is not relevant
The answer to this is— Anything else does nol exist--for you'.
It might be urged that even if the co-ordination is not actually cognised, yet it is there all the same, in the actual state of things?
The answer to this is Where would be, ete. etc. - Aikarthyam' is coordination.