________________
778
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XIX.
what is spoken of as the Universal ',- And this is purely imaginary, as it has been discarded above.
Question :--"How then is there the idor of the external Specific Individuality ?"
Answer - It is only one, etc. etc. (1571-1573)
Question :-"What would be the incongruity if the Word (Name) were applied to the Specific Individuality ? "
Anster
TEXT (1574).
IT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE IDEA OF CONCEPTUAL CONTENTS AND WORDS ENVISAGING SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALITIES HAS BEEN
REJECTED IN DETAIL.--(1574)
COMMENTARY.
In course of our examination of the Denotation of Words, the idea that Words and Conceptual Contents envisage Specific Individualities, las been rejected in detail. Honce what is expressed by the name must be the conceptually imposed thing.-(1674)
TEXTS (1575-1576).
EVEN IF THEY WERE ENVISAGED BY WORDS AND CONCEPTUAL CONTENTS, -THE RESULTANT COGNITION WOULD ONLY BE Inference. THAT IT PROCEEDS FROM THE THREE-FEATURED INDICATIVE' IS THUS DEDUCED THIS ANIMAL, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE Cow, IS ONE TO WHICH THE NAME Gavaya IS APPLICABLE, JUST LIKE THE Gavaya WHICH WAS PRESENT IN THE MIND AT THE TIME WHEN THE RELEVANT CONVENTION BECAME KNOWN
(1575-1576)
COMMENTARY.
We grant-for the sake of argument that Words and Conceptual Contents envisage Specific Individualities. Even so, the Cognition in question becomes included under Inference; and Analogical Cognition cannot be a distinct form of Cognition.
Question: "How can it be included under Inforence when it is not brought about by the three-featured Indicative ?"
Answer-'That it proceeds, etc. etc. Similarity to the Cow is the Probans ; being one to which the name Gavaya is applicable' is the Pro