________________
494
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XVI.
Inexistence per Destruction; the absence of the House, etc. in the Cow is called mutual Inexistence; when portions of the head of the Hare are flat and devoid of a hard protuberance, it is said to be absolute Inexistence, in the shape of the Hare's Horn ... These this are not so many kinds of non-entity. Hence Inexistence must be an entity' (Shlokavnika: Abhāva, 2-4 and 8).-What is meant is that it is Milk itself which, while not present in the form of the Curd, comes to be known as the Previous Inexistence (of the Curd); and similarly with other forms of Inecistence.--Thuis Inexistence being only a form of w.cistence, what is that Inexistence which is meant by you to be the 'Negation of the Horse, etc.'; please tell us this."-(916)
The Bauddha might say-What is to be said? What we mean is none other than the Specific Individuality of the Cow.
"The answer to this is as follows:
TEXTS (917-918).
"YOU DO NOT ADMIT OF ANY INDIVIDUALITY IN THE NATURE OF SOME
THING uncommon (UNIQUE), BECAUSE IT IS DEVOID OF OON. CEPTUAL CONTENT; SO ALSO (YOU DO NOT ADMIT) THE
VARIEGATED ANIMAL' AND THE LIKE; AS IN THAT CASE THE IMPORT WOULD NOT BE UNIVERSAL (COMMON). HENCE THE IDEA OF THE Cow MUST BE BASED UPON THAT FORM WHICH SUBSISTS IN COMMON IN EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (Cow); (AND IN THIS THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE BETWEEN US]."-[Ibid.
3 & 101–1917-918)
COMMENTARY.
That which is the unique (uncommon) Individuality is not held by you to constitute the negation of Horse and other non-cows'; why 1-because it is devoid of conceptual content (or determination): that is, all determination ceases in it; it is only the Common Universal that is held to form the object of determination (conceptual thought); while that entity which is uncommon, unique is beyond all determination; as declared in the following words
What is perceptible by the senses is the self-cognisable, inexplicable forma. The ground for regarding anything as an Individual consists in its uncommon (unique) character; hence what is meant by the words of the Text is that which is an Individuality by reason of its uncommon character.
Hitherto the Text has made only & general statement. It reasserts same thing in reference to a particular instance So also, etc. etc.':-that is, just as you do not admit of the Import of the word 'Cow' to consist in any unique individual in the shape of the negation of the Horse and other noncows', so also you do not admit of any positive entity in the form of the
