________________
520
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XVI,
& number of words connected together, uch as "Blue lotus'. It appears also in the case of expressions where the terms are not co-ordinated ; e.g. in the expression King's officer. It is said to be a case of co-ordina. tion when two words, having different connotations, are applied to the same object; such co-ordination is held to be present only in compounds like "Blue-lotus
Now in regard to such verbal expression as 'Blue.lotis, and the like, whose connotation is mixedthere is co-ordination, and this would not be possible under the Apoha-theory.
Mixed connotation '-.e. a connotation of mixed character. As declared in the statement The Blue Lotus is neither Blue only nor the Lotus only, because what is denoted is the combination of both
Question :- Why is this not possible under the A poha-theory?
Answer:- Because, etc. etc.'. Because on the exclusion of the nonblue, there is no 'exclusion of the non-lotus. Nor does the latter—i.e.' Exclusion of the non-Lotus '-involve the former i.e. the exclusion of the non-blue',- [In some texts, the reading is 'itara' for itara)'; where the Feminine form may be taken as with reference to the term Chyutih'; * itara' thus standing for the Chynti, exclusion, of the Non-Blue).-What is meant is that these two do not stand in the relation of container and con. la ined, because both are featureless. And when there is no relation, there can be no relation of qualification and qualified; if there were, we would be landed in absurdities.
What is meant by this is that under your theory there can be no mixed connotation, as all words denote mere negation; and hence the relation of qualification and qualified is not possible.
It might be argued that there may be no relation of qualification and qualified between what are denoted by the words,-why should it not subsist between the words themselves !!
The answer to this is-Nor would, etc. etc., that is, it is only through their denotations that the relation of qualification and qualified becomes attributed to the words; hence when the said relation is not possible between what are denoted, how can there be any attributing of it to the denotative words 7-967-969)
Kumarila now proceeds to deny co-ordination'
TEXT (970). "CO-ORDINATION IS NOT POSSIBLE, AS THE Apohas ARE DIFFERENT - IF IT BE HELD TO SUBSIST ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IS DENOTED. THEN WHAT SORT OF 'SUBSISTENCE WOULD THERE BE BETWEEN THE TWO ?"-[Shlo. Vā.
Apoha 118)—(970)
COMMENTARY. It is only when two words are applied to the same object that there is co-ordination between them; and (under the Apoha-theory) it is not possible
