________________
EXAMINATION OF THE IMPORT OF WORDS.
487
Products); and the Universal' as something different from the Particulars has been rejected in course of the examination of the Six Categories ;hence the Import of Words cannot consist either of the conjunction of the Unreal', or of the Real Universal with Unreal Adjuncta'-(898)
The following Text points out objections against the view that what is denoted is Ooalescence'
TEXTS (899-901).
INASMUCH AS THE IMPORT OF WORDS CANNOT CONSIST OF PARTIOVLARS OR UNIVERSALS, THERE CAN BE NO FORM OF THE WORD AS COALESCED (IDENTIFIED) WITH ITS DENOTATION. THEN AGAIN, THIS COALESCENCE ALSO MUST RESIDE IN THE COGNITION ITSELF, INASMUCH AS IT IS DIFFERENT FROM EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIP, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS VIEW AND THE VIEW THAT THE COGNITION OR IDEA ITSELF CONSTITUTES THE IMPORT OF WORDS ?AS REGARDS THE VIEW THAT THE FORM OF THE IDEA (OR COGNITION) IS WHAT IS DENOTED BY WORDS, THAT KAS BEEN ALREADY REJECTED, ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD BE NOTHING DIFFERENT FROM THE IDEA AND AS SUCH COULD NOT
BE PERVASIYE.-(899-901)
COMMENTARY.
If there were such a thing as the denotation of the word, then it might become coalesced with it; but in so far as it has been proved that no denotation of the Word is possible, in the form of Specific Individuality' and the rest,-how could there be any coalescing with it?
Then again, the said 'Coalescence' also must reside in the Cognition only. Because the external Word and the external Object (denoted) must be distinct by reason of their being perceived by different sense-organs and so forth; hence any real coalescence or identification of these cannot be right. The Coalescence', therefore, that is proper is only of such Word and Object as reside in the Cognition. So that when the Word, having taken up the form of the denoted Object, has its verbal character obscured, and appears in the Cognition,-it introduces the objective element into its subjective form; and it is then that it comes to be described as "abhijalpa',
Coalescence'. This must be a form within the Cognition itself, and nothing exterior to it; because what is exterior must be of an entirely distinct character.
Under the circumstances, what would be the difference between this view and the other one by which the Cognition or Idea itself is regarded as the Import of Words -None at all. In both cases the denotation would he purely subjective; the only difference being that the word and the denotation had coalesced and become one.
