________________
518
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XVI.
and the 'Hare's Horn;-and the denoted and denotative Apohas are both non-entities ;-hence there is perception of a character contrary to the character of wider extension. (964)
Objection against the above - There is cognition of the absence of Rain from the absence of clouds (where both are non-entities); hence the Reason put forward is not conclusive.
Answer:
TEXT (965).
"IF SOME ONE, PERCEIVING THE SAID RELATION BETWEEN THE NONEXISTENT RAIN AND THE NON-EXISTENT CLOUD, WERE TO URGE
INCONCLUSIVENESS AGAINST OCR REASON, -THEN, ACCORDING TO OUR VIEW, THERE IS AN entity IN THE CASE CITED ALSO, BUT HOW COULD IT BE UNDER YOUR VIEW ? "-[Shlo..
Vå. Apoha 109]—(965)
COMMENTARY.
On seeing that between the Rain and the Cloud both of which are non-existent, i.e. mere negations['asal' in the compound standing for the abstract noun 'asattu', non-existence),—the relation of denotative and denoted (indicator and indicated) is present, if the Bauddha were to argue that our Reason, because they are non-entities'-is "Inconclusive!,- then that cannot be right; because According to our view, in this case of the Cloud and Rein also there is an entity present, in the shape of the clean sky; because according to us Negation is an eptity. For you, Bauddha, on the other hand, how could it be? That is, how could there be the relation of Indicator and Indionted in the case cited ? It could not be possible at all.
The particle 'api', also, is misplaced ; it should have come after adah'; so that the meaning is as follows :-It is not only in the case of the two Apohas that it is not possible for you to liave the relation of Denoted and Denotative (Indicator and Indicated), it is not possible also in the case of the Rain and the Cloud.-(965)
" Then again, you hold the opinion that the Word and the Inferential Indicative,-in both of which affirmation forms the subordinate, and negation the predominant factor,-are expressive of their objects; and you have also made the following statement-'When the denotation of another word has not been perceived, the relationship of the Word is easily deduced from the perception of even a part of what is denoted by it; and there can be no fallibility in this'-All this is not right, under the theory of Apoha. " This is what is shown in the following
