________________
508
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XVI.
TEXT (945). "UNLESS THE Cow IS ESTABLISHED, THERE CAN BE NO non-Con ; AND IF THERE IS NO Non-Cous, HOW CAN THE COW BE THERE? BETWEEN TWO NEGATIONS, THERE CAN BE NO SUCH RELATION AS THAT OF THE Container and the Contained AND
THE LIKE."—[Ibid. Apoha 85)-(945)
COMMENTARY
For the purpose of proving the relation of qualification and qualified (between the two), the Teacher Dinnaga has declared as follows Such terms as Blue Latus and the like signify things qualified by the negation of other things
The Opponent shows the impropriety of this view, in the wordsBettween two negations, etc. etc. '-When between two things, a real relationship is known to exist, then it may be correct to say that one is qualified by the other; in the case of the Blue-Lotus however, inasmuch as the two are of the nature of the negation of Blue and negation of Lotus, which are mere negations, and hence devoid of any form,--there cannot be any such relation between them as that of Container and Contained and the like.
The term and the rest, includes such relations as those of Conjunction, Inherence, Inherence in a common substratum and so forth.
In the absence of any real relation, it is not right that there should be a notion of one being qualified by the other. If it were so, then there would be an incongruity--(945)
The following might be urged by the Bauddha): It is not meant by us that in the case of the expression Blue Lotus, the negation of the nonLotus is qualified by the negation of the non-blue; hence the said objection cannot apply to us. What we mean is that there is an entity which is excluded from the non-blue and the non-lotus ; and what is denoted by the word is that entity as qualified by the exclusion of other things.
This is answered in the following
TEXT (946).
"As A MATTER OF FACT, ANY THING UNCOMMON (UNIQUE, SPECIFIC) IS NEVER COGNISED AS QUALIFIED BY THE Apoha. HOW TOO COULD ANY RELATIONSHIP BE ASSUMED BETWEEN AN ENTITY AND
A NON-ENTITY ? "--[Ibid. Apoha 867—(946)
COMMENTARY.
That is, because the Specific Individuality cannot be expressed by words, and also because all the objections urged against that view are applieable in the present case also.
