________________
EXAMINATION OF THE IMPORT OF WORDS.
527
TEXTS (980-981). " RATHER THAN ASSUME THE THING TO BE EXCLUDED, IT IS FAR BETTER
TO ASSUME THE ENTITY ITSELF.-AS THE IDEA OF THINGS BEING OF THE FORM OF COGNITIONS HAS BEEN REJECTED, WHAT IS DENOTED CANNOT BE ANYTHING INTERNAL (SUBJECTIVE); NOR IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ANY SUBJECTIVE THING TO BE EXCLUDED'. THUS THERE CAN BE NO A poha IN THE CASE OF THE WORDS IN QUESTION.- LASTLY, IN THE CASE OF SUCK WORDS AS 'ēva', NOTHING IS FOUND TO BE EXCLUDED'.[Shlo. Vă. Apoha 145-146)
-980-981)
COMMENTARY. If all that is cognisable is assumed to be excluded as cognisable ,then it is far better to admit the positive entity itself to be denoted by the word; which is what is accepted by all men. That is to say, in so doing there would be no assumption of the Unseeni, nor the denial of the Seen. That is why it is spoken of as 'far better'.
Some (Buddhists) have held the view that what is denoted by all words is only the reflection of conceptual thought, and it is this that is excluded, differentiated and expressed'.
The answer to this is-As the idea of things, etc. etc. That is, we have already rejected the idea that things are of the nature of cognitions; and we have done so on the ground that Cognition is formless, while the thing has a form and is clearly perceived as existing in the external world; consequently there being no internal (subjective) form resting in Cognition, it cannot be right to regard any such thing as denoted by words.
Nor is it possible for any such subjective thing to be rejected, for the same reason that no such thing exists.
In the case of the words in question—i.e. words like 'Cognisable'.
Then again, there are such words ag évam' ('thus '), ittham' ('in this way ') and so forth; in the case of these, nothing is iound that can be ex. cluded ': & there is no counter-entity in this case, in the form of what could be excluded.
It might be argued that in such expressions as 'na evam' ('not thus') there is something probable that could be regarded as excluded'.
This also is not possible in this case, as already pointed out. Because here also, in the expression 'na nawam', there is negation of negation; and the 'évam' remains in its own unnegatived-positive-form. So the same reason that we had urged before becomes applicable here also.—(980-981)
All the above has been set forth as put forward by Kumärila. With the following Teacts, the Author proceeds to set forth objections put forward by Uddyotakara against Apoha [In Nyayavartika on 2. 2. 63, pp. 332-333]:
