________________
542
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XYL.
The reason for its being called the denotation of the word ' and the Apoha' has already been explained above, under Texts 1017 and 1007.(1024)
Question-"Wherefore is not that a real Commonalty (Universal) ?" Answer:
TEXT (1025)
IT IS NOT RIGHT TO RECARD ITS CHARACTER OF Universal entity, AS REAL; BEING NON-DIFFERENT FROM THE COGNITTON, HOW COULD IT
APPERTAIN TO ANOTHER THING ?-(1025)
COMMENTARY
In reality, the Apoha is not anything entirely different from the Cognition ; how then could it appertain to another thing,-by virtue of which appertenence, it could be the commonalty' of several things 1 It has been declared above-How can what is non-different from the Cognition appertain to another thing?!
For this same reason, our reasoning is not open to the charge of being redundant' (seeking to prove what is already admitted); because you do not admit the Universal named 'Cow' to be of the form of Cognition and not of the form of an entity, on the other hand, you postulate the Universal * Cow as a real entity embracing all cows-variegated and the rest. Hence our reasoning is not redundant
It has been urged (under 919) that,"If mere negation be assumed to be the denotation of words, this would be only the void expressed differently". As no such assumption is made by us, it does not affect our position.-(1025)
It has been urged (under 920, by Kumarila) that--" There would be apprehension therein of part of the cognition of the Horse itself, etc. etc".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (1026). THOUGH THIS FORM OF Apoha' IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE FORM OF THE COGNITION, YET ITS external character TS APPREHENDED
ONLY BY DELUDED PERSONS.-(1026)
COMMENTARY.
This is easily understood.-(1026)
It has been argued (under 921, by Kumarila) that—"if the denotation of words is independent of things, then the assumption of Apoha is useless"
The answer to this is as follows:
