________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DMPORT OF WORDS.
529
nothing left for the word 'all' to denote : and this word would thus become meaningless.-[The word 'anga' stands for part).-Similarly all collective words, like group and the rest, would become meaningless, if they were used for the exelusion of their own constituents; as it is held that the group has no existence apart from the members that take up that group. -As for the words 'two' and the rest, they also pertain to groups (of Two, Three, etc.); so that, if they denoted the exclusion of one and the rest -as these, being precluded, would not be there to make up the said groups, the words would become meaningless."
This is the argument that is indicated by the words They would not be so applicable (Text 985). What is meant is that the words in question are accepted as applicable to groups; but they would cease to be so applicable.
"Further, when it is asserted that what the word Cow' denotes is the • Apoho of other things i.e. something that is not non-Cow';—is this something (A) Positive or (B) Negative 1-(A) If it is Positive, is it the Cow or the non-Cov? If it is the Cow, then there is no quarrel between us.If it is the non-cow that is held to be denoted by the word Cow'; this shows a wonderful insight into the meanings of words -(B) Nor can it be something Negative; as nothing negative can form the subject of any injunc. tion or comprehension thereof; as a matter of fact, when one hears the word
Cow', 'neither the Injunction nor its comprehension pertains to anything merely negative."
This is the argument that is indicated in the words 'Nor can it be negative, etc., etc.'-* Praisa' stands for Praisana, Injunction; that is, the urging of the hearer by the Speaker to something; this belongs to the Speaker; while . Comprehension' belongs to the hearer.-The term ' and the rest' is meant to include such nouns as carrier", milker and the like.
Lastly, it is by actual experience that the meaning of words is comprehended ; and as a matter of fact, no one ever comprehends negation from the word 'Cow':-(982–988)
"Further, Apoha, Exclusion, being an Action, it behoves you to point out its object (i.e. the object excluded). That is to say, you explain Apoha' as 'not being the non-Cow'; now is this object of the Apoka, the Cow or the non-Oow 2-If it pertains to the Cow, how can there be negation of the Cow in the Cow itself ?-If, on the other hand, it pertains to the non-Cow, how can the Apoha or Exclusion of one thing (non-Cow) lead to the comprehension of another thing the Cow)? Certainly, when the Khadira tree is cut, the outting does not fall upon the Palasha tree.-Further, if the phrase "the Cow is not the non-Cow' is explained as the negation, in the Cow, of the non-Cow, then you should explain who has ever conceived of the Cow as the non-Oow,—which conception would be negatived by the said Apoha ?"
The Arguer regards the first two alternatives as irrelevant, hence he sets forth the third alternative (that there is preclusion, in the Cow, of the non-Cow]:
34
