________________
522
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XVI.
Where would be the use-i.e. now here at all.-Because even if a thing exists, if it is not cognised (known), it cannot form part of the usage of people. -(971)
The following might be urged: If it were mere exclusion that is denoted by the word, then there would be room for the said objection; as a matter of fact, however, what is denoted is the entity along with the exclusion : consequently the two words having the two exclusions as their adjuncte could very well apply to a single entity alone with the Apoha; Bo that the co-ordination would be there all right.
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (972).
"IF IT BE SAID THAT WHAT IS DENOTED IS THE ENTITY ALONG WITH THE Apoha, -THERE ALSO, CONCOMITANCE WITH THE WORD WOULD
BE UNATTAINABLE, AS IT WOULD BE DEPENDENT UPON
SOMETHING ELSE."—[Shlo.- Vă. Apoha 120]—(972)
COMMENTARI
There also ', -i.e. in the Entity along with the Apona being regarded as denoted by the word, the concomitanoe 'i.e. indication-of the various variations of the non-blue Lotus with the word 'Blue-would be unatainable ;-why ?--because the word-Blue-would be dependent upon something else ; inasmuch as it denotes the object only as subordinate to the Ecclusion, and not directly; and as there is no direct denotation, there could be no indication of its variations : just as the word 'sweetdoes not indicate the white colour; though as things stand, the white colour is a variety of the non-sweet, yet, the potency of the word lies in the indication of the varieties of only that which it denotes directly, and not in that of the variety of what is denoted through the intervention of something else. Consequently, as there would be no indication, by the word 'blue', of the varieties of the Lotus, this latter could not be its variety; and when it could not be its variety, no co-ordination would be possible.
Thus, then, the objection that you have yourself urged against the denotation of the Individual as endowed with the Universal,-by the statement that 'the word cannot denote that which possesses the Universal, because it is not independent',-is applicable also to the view that what is denoted is the entity along with the ecclusion. This is what has been made clear by the Text. That is to say, if the denotation of the word consisted of the Entity along with the Universal', then the word 'Sat', 'Being', 'Existence, would express the substance with the form of the Universal as its subordinate factor, and not directly ; because it does not indicate the varieties in the shape of the Jar and other things; and in the event of the varieties not being indicated, there can be no co-ordination, as already pointed out. This same incongruity is equally applicable to the view that what is denoted is the entity along with the Exobion; as in this case also the word 'sat' would
