________________
506
TATTVARAŃCRAHA: CHAPTER XVI.
clusive': inasmuch as the application of words to the Apoha is admitted, even though no Convention can be made in regard to it.-1940)
The following text again proceeds to show that there can be no Convention in regard to the Apoha
TEXT (941).
"How COULD ONU APPREHEND THE FACT OF SOMETHING NOT BEING DENOTED BY THE WORD 'Cow - IT COULD BE LEARNT FROM THE FACT THAT THE WORD Cow WAS NOT FOUND TO BE APPLIED TO IT AT TEE MOMENT OF THE APPREHENSION OF THE CONNECTION OF THAT WORD. THIS IS WHAT
THE BAUDDHA MAY SAY.]”-[Ibid. 81]-(941)
COMMENTARY.
It behoves you to explain tliis : How do you know that the Horse and other non-Cows are denoted by the word 'non-Cow' -i.e. they are not denoted by the word 'Cow'?
The Baudha answers- It could be learnt, etc. etc.'-' at the moment, elc. etc.',-i.e. at the time of the comprehension of the Convention.-(941)
The Opponent (Kumārila) rojects this explanation (provided by the Bauddha)
TEXT (942).
"IN TRAT CASE, ALL THINGS, WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL COW, WOULD BECOME EXCLUDED BY THE Apoha; AND IN THAT CASE IT WOULD NOT BE PROVED THAT ANY commonalty CONSTITUTES THE IMPORT
OF WORDS."-[Ibid. 82]—(942)
COMMENTARY.
If it is your opinion that the word 'Cow' cannot apply to anything except the one that was perceived at the time of the apprehension of the Convention,-then, with the exception of the one Spotted Cow which has been the object of the Convention, every thing else, even the Black and other Cows, -would have to be excluded by the word 'Cow'; and in that case, it could not be established that any Commonalty is denoted by the Word.-1942)
The following text shows that no Convention could be made regarding the Apoha, as it would involve mutual interdependence :
