________________
528
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XVI
TEXTS (982–988).
* IN THE CASE OF THE WORD 'ALL' (sarva') WHAT IS IT THAT IS ASSUMED
TO BU THE EXCLUDED'? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE non-all, WHICH COULD BE EXCLUDED.-IF IT BE URGED THAT'one AND THE REST'ARE THE non-all, THEN IT COMES TO BE THE EXCLUSION OF THE DENOTATION ITSELF; AS THE parts WOULD BE EXCLUDED, AND NO whole IS ADMITTED.-SIMILARLY, IN REGARD TO THE DENOTATION OF THE WORD GROUP (Samüha '). THE CONSTITUENTS WOULD BE EXCLUDED; AND NOTHING APART FROM THIS IS ADMITTED, HENCE ALL SUCH WORDS BECOME DEPRIVED OF THEIR MEANING.-AS REGARDS THE WORDS TWO AND THE REST, WHICH ALSO ARE APPLIED TO groups, AS THE 'ONE' AND OTHER CONSTITU. ENTS WOULD BE EXCLUDED, THEY COULD NO LONGER BE SO APPLICABLE.-THEN AGAIN, THE DENOTATION OF THE WORD Cow' is SAID TO BE THE 'NON-NON.Cow'; - NOW IS This positive or negative ? IP IT IS positive, IS IT THE COW OR THE Non-cow ?-IF IT IS THE Cow, THEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE, AS THE DENOTATION TURNS OUT TO BE OF THE POSITIVE CHARACTER. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT IS THE non-Cow THAT IS DENOTED BY THE WORD Cow, THAT WOULD EXHIBIT A WONDERFUL INSIGHT INTO THE MEANINGS OF WORDS INDEED-NOR CAN IT BE negative; AS, IN THAT CASE INJUNCTION AND THE REST WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.-NOR DOES ANY ONE EVER COMPREHEND A negation FROM THE WORD Cow."-(982-988)
COMMENTARY.
U&dyotakara has argued as follows:-"It cannot be right to say that words denote the Apoha of other things; because this explanation cannot apply to all words; that is to say, in the case of words where there are two mutually exclusive contradictions, it may be that when one is affirmed the other is denied; as for instance, it may be true that when the word 'Cow' is heard, the Cow is affirmed and the non-Cow is denied. But this is not possible in the case of the word 'Sarva' ('all'), as there is no such thing as non-all, which could be denied by the word 'all'--' But in this case also, there is denial or preclusion of ons and the rest; so that our explanation takes in this case also' You mean that one and the rest are the contradictories of all, the non-all which are excluded by the word 'all'But this is not right; as it involves the incongruity of words abandoning their own meaning. If the word "all' excludes one and the rest,-inasmuch as these latter are what go to make up the Au, and (for the Buddhist) the whole has no existence apart from its constituents, the exclusion of one and the rest would mean the exclusion of everything that goes to make up the An, and there would be
