________________
EXAMINATION OF THE IMPORT OF WORDS.
517
the uncommon word, which is apprehended in auditory Perception, as of the nature of a Specifio Individuality', cannot be denotative.-Why ?Because no such could have been perceived before ; that is, the Word that is there at the time of usage will not have been perceived before that usage, i.e. at the time of the making of the Convention relating to it; and the word that was perceived at that time will have long censed to exist, so that there could be no usage of that word ; nor is it right that there should be any usage based upon the word that was not perceived at the time of the Convention ; as that wonld lead to incongruities.-From all this it follows that the Specific Individuality cannot be denotative.
In fact, among you yourselves, there is a difference on this point; as it has been stated (by one of yourselves) that-'no particular thing can be denoted, and no particular word can be denotative, because it has not been perceived before ; it is the Commonalty (Universal) that will be ao, as is going to be explained'.-Hence no objection can be taken to what we have said regarding the denotative word.
Such being the case, il it be held that what is denotative is the Exclusion of other words, in the form of the Word-Universal ', - in the same way ae the 'Exclusion of other things' is of the form of the Thing-Universal', then, as shown above, under Text 926,-48 there can be no diversity among the denoted 4 pohas, so there can be no diversity among the denotative Apohas also ; because these latter are featureless.
And just as there can be no difference among the denotative Apohas, No also there can be no difference between the denotative and the denoted Apohas: because these also are featureless.
It might be argued that there may be difference among these, due to the differences among the Excluded things.-The answer to that is that there can be no difference, etc. etc. that is, how there can be no difference due to difference among the excluded things has been already explained above, under Text 928.-1961-963)
So far it has been shown that the Proposition of the Bauddha) is contrary to experience and to his own doctrines. Kumärila now proceeds to prove that it is open to the charge of involving the incongruity of the relation of denoted and denotative' being impossible, and also to that of being contrary to the Opponent's own doctrines -
TEXT (964). “THERE COULD BE NO RELATION OF denoted and denotative BETWEEN
THE TWO A pohas, BECAUSE THEY ARE NON-ENTITIES, UNDER YOUR VIEW; JUST AS THE SKY FLOWER' AND THE 'Hare's HORNARE, ACCORDING TO ORDINARY PEOPLE.”—
[Shlo. Vā. Apoha 108)—(964)
COMMENTARY. The relation of denoted and denotative cannot lie between what are non-entities; eg, there can be no such relation between the Sky flower'
