________________
EXAMINATION OF THE IMPORT OF WORDS.
567
persons as external things; and hence they are endowed with illusory reality.-- (1089)
If, on the other hand, the Reason adduced pertains to the Real Character of 'Entity', then the argument is superfluous. Because in fact, we do not accept anything as being the denoter or denoled, in reality.- This is what is shown in the following
TEXT (1090).
In reality, THERE CAN BE NOTHING THAT CAN BE EITHER denoter
OR denoted,-AS ALL THINGS BEING IN PERPETUAL
FLUX, NO CONCOMITANCE IS POSSIBLE.-(1090)
COMMENTARY.
Because no concomitance is possible that is to say, the Specific Individuality cannot be concomitant with present at the time of-tho making of the Convention and that of the using of the word.—(1090)
The following might be urged by the other party :-"We are not denying the real relation of Denoted and Denoter; what we are denying is the illusory relation of Denoted and Denoter which is based upon the real fact of the two Apohas being non-entities; so that our Reason is not notadmitted ; nor is our conclusion open to the defect of being superfluous"
The following Teacts proceed to show that, if both are regarded to be illusory and real, then the two objections do become applicable :
TEXTS (1091-1092).
IF IT IS THE fllusory RELATION OF DENOTER AND DENOTED THAT IS
DENIED, ON THE BASIS OF THE real FACT OF THE TWO Exclusions BEING NON-ENTITIES,-EVEN SO, FALSITY' BECOMES UNAVOIDABLE; IN VIEW OF SUCH WORDS AND THINGS DENOTED BY THEM AS ARE THE
CREATION OF IMAGINATION.-(1091-1092)
COMMENTARY.
Under the circumstances, the Reason would be Inconclusive; as in the case of such creatures of imagination as Mahashvēta and the like, and also words denoting these,-even though they are non-entities in reality, yet the illusory Relation of Denoter and Denoted is actually present. -(1091-1092)
The following might be urged by the other party :-" In the case of things like Mahishvēra, the denoted thing, in the shape of the Universal, is
