________________
492
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XVI.
The next three Terts state the fact of the Buddhist's Proposition being contrary to experience, in accordance with the opinion of Bhanaha
TEXT (912) * IF THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE WORD "Cow' IS SERVED BY THE
EXCLUSION OF OTHERS, THEN, PLEASE FIND SOME OTHER WORD WHICH BRINGS ABOUT THE NOTION OF Cow' IN REGARD TO THE COW ITSELF."-(912)
COMMENTARY "If the word 'Cow' only serves the purpose of denoting the exclusion of others, then, as it would be taken up in that,—that term Cow' could not bring about the idea of the animal with the dewlap; hence it would be necessary to seek for some other word which could bring about the notion of Cow' in regard to the said animal with the dewlap."-(912)
It might be said (by the other party) that one and the same word Oow would bring about both the notions, and hence the second word need not be sought after"--To this, Bhämaha makes the following reply:
TEXT (913).
"IN FACT, COGNITION IS THE FRUIT OF WORDS ; AND NO SINGLE WORD CAN HAVE TWO FRUITS. HOW TOO COULD BOTH Affirmation and
Negation BE THE FRUIT OF ANY ONE WORD?"-(913)
COMMENTARY 4 Words have for their fruit the cognition of affirmation and of negation. What then 1-No single word can have two fruits ; of any one word, be it affirmative or negative, there cannot be two fruits appearing at one and the same time; that is, no such is ever found.-Nor again is it possible for mutually contradictory cognitions of affirmation and negation to be the fruit of a single word."—(913)
In the following Text, Bhämaha puts forward his comprehensive argument (against 4 poha)
TEXT (914).
"WHEN ONE HEARS THE WORD 'Cow' UTTERED, HE SHOULD, FIRST OF ALL HAVE THE IDEA OF THE non-cow,---AS THE WORD Cow' WOULD HAVE BEEN UTTERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
NEGATIVING THE NON-Cow1"-(914)
COMMENTARY. "If it is the negation of the non-cow that is mainly expressed by the word 'Cow, then, on hearing the word 'Cow', the first idea in the mind of
