________________
138
F. W. Thomas, Mallisena's Syadvādamañjari
accounting for a determinate own-form: for the apprehension of that the word 'quodammodo is used; quodammodo, in a way, this only with its own substance, etc., exists, and not also with the substance, etc., of other things that is the meaning. And even where that (word) is not used, there also like the word eva effecting exclusion, it is conceived by intelligent people. As has been said:20)
"This, even when not employed, is conceived by knowers of it in all cases from the
sense.
Just as the word eva, having the purpose of cutting off the non-application, etc."). So the first nuance'.
Quodammodo, in a way, the vessel, etc., simply is not. For, if a non-existence of an entity, as with its own substance, etc., so also with the substance, etc., of other things is not intended, then from the absence of a determinate own-form there would not be determinateness of the entily. Nor should it here be said by maintainers of unequivocal (one-sided) existence that non-existence is unestablished: because in a way it is logically established in regard to the entity, like a Middle Termo). For in the case of no Major Term, non-entity, etc., is the actuality of the Middle Term, existence, etc., appropriate without its non-actuality in a counterinstance; because of the consequence of its not being (effectually) a Middle-Term. Therefore to the existence of an entity non-existence is indispensable, and to its non-existence the former. And the primariness and subsidiariness of the two depends upon the intent. So one must understand in the case of the other 'nuances' also by reason of the saying of the expounders "because of the establishment of the not-given by the given"25). So the second. The third is quite obvious.
When by the two attributes, existence and non-existence, applied simultaneously as primary, a single entity is to be designated, from the impossibility of such a word, an entity, soul, etc., (191) is unutterable 24). As thus: the pair of qualities, existence and non-existence cannot be stated together in regard to one thing by the term 'existent'; because that is incompetent for the expression of non-existence; nor similarly by 'non-existent', because that has no competence for causing presentation of existence. Nor can a single conventional term, like Puspadantao), etc., express that; since for that also capacity for causing presentation of things in succession is appropriate; like the conventional word sat in the case of sats and sāna 26). For this reason Dvandva and Karmadharaya ??) forms and the sentence are not expressive thereof; so that from lack of all forms of expression the entity is unutterable, stands out overpowered by simultaneous existence and non-existence applied as primary. But it is not in every way unutterable, because of the consequence that it would be undeno
20) Ibid., 1. 6. 56 (M. L.).
*1) This may.mean an ubage like that of sic in European texts to show that the preceding word is definitely precise.
22) The Middle Term would be equivocal, as found in both positive and negative instances. 23) See su pra, p. 135.
24) The fact that this is always interpreted as arising from combination of positive and negative may account for non-insertion of 'not-inutterable' in the scheme of 'nuances'.
28) Flower-teeth' (a name) does not imply a simultaneous presentation of the same objects as flowers and teeth; it means "(having) teeth resembling flowers'. In the Dual Hemacandra's Abhidhäna-cintamani 11. 124, cites it as denoting 'moon and sun' (Dhruva, p. 371).
26) Panini's Grammar, III. ii. 127 (M. L.). The two terms, signifying respectively the Participles in -ant and -ana, are cited jointly as sat, which does not, however, identify them.
*7) A Dvandva Compound signifies A and B together, a Karmadharaya A + Attribute', not identification of A and B, or A and Attribute.
