________________
EXAMINATION OF THE IMPORT OF WORDS.
573
TEXTS (1105-1106).
BY THE SINGLE WORD, THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALITY BEOOMES EXPRESSED
IN ITS ENTIRETY ; AND WHEN THAT HAS BEEN DENOTED, WHY SHOULD THERE BE NON-COGNITION OF OTHER THINGS, FOR THE SAKE OF WHICH ANOTHER WORD WOULD BE PRONOUNCED,—WHEN, IN REALITY, THE THING HAS DEEN DENOTED IN ITS ENTIRETY -IF NOT, THEN IT BECOMES more than one.
-(1105-1106)
COMMENTARY
Under the theory of those who hold that words denote positive entities when the single word blue' expresses the Specifie Individuality of the Lotus and other (blue) things-why should there be any absence of cognition of such other particular things as the Lotus and the Collyrium, since the Blue Thing has been denoted in its entirety? Because the idea that one and the same thing should be both known and unknown to the same person involves self-contradiction. This is what is pointed out in the text by the words. Why should there, elc. etc.' – Non-Cognition stands for bad cognition, ie, doubtful and wrong cognition
Thus there being no doubtful or wrong cognition, there can be no desire on the part of the speaker to pronounce any other word, such as Lotus and the like. This is shown by the words for the sake of which, etc. etc.
For the sake of which',-i.. for the purpose of removing which non. cognition.
It might be argued that," when the Blue thing has been denoted by the single word 'blue, it has been denoted only in part, not in its entirety ; hence for the purpose of speaking of other characteristics of the Blue Thing, another word is sought after".
The answer to this is— When in reality, etc. etc.'. There are no parts in any single object, by virtue of which there could be denotation in part; because the ons (whole) and the many parts) are mutual contradictories, one being the negation of the other; so that what your explanation does is to establish as many distinct things as there may be parts; and hence there would be no such concepts as 'one' and 'many':-(1105 1106)
The following might be urged by the other party "The word 'blue' does not denote a particular substance; it denotes either the quality called
Blue or the Universal 'Blue' inhering in that quality; the word lotus" also denotes the Universal Lotus', not any particular substance; hence, as the two words denoto two different things, it is only right that there should be a need for the word 'lotus' (after the utterance of the word 'blue')."
The answer to this is as follows:
