0650 Verse 895

Original

गोत्वशब्दविशिष्टार्थसत्तामात्रगतेर्भवेत् ।
विषाणाकृतिनीलादिभेदाख्यातेस्तु तन्मतम् ॥ ८९५ ॥

gotvaśabdaviśiṣṭārthasattāmātragaterbhavet |
viṣāṇākṛtinīlādibhedākhyātestu tanmatam || 895 ||

“It (usage) would be based upon the mere ‘being’ of things as qualified by the universal ‘cow’ and the word (‘cow’); and the opinion that has been held is due to the fact that there are such diversities of form as the presence of horns, the particular shape, the particular colour ‘blue’ and so forth.”—(895)

Kamalaśīla

The following may be the answer of the other party:—“The diverse usage would proceed on the basis of the cognition of the mere ‘Being’ of the Thing concerned (which is what is expressed by the verb ‘to be’), as qualified by the Universal Cow and the word (‘Cow’, but devoid of such distinctions as being of variegated colour and so forth.—If that is so, then why is the denotation of the word said to consist in only what is expressed by the Verb ‘to be’,—when such particulars as the ‘Cow’, etc. are also said to be denoted?—The answer to this given by the other party is—‘The opinion, etc. etc.’;—that is, as a matter of fact, the idea of the Horn and other particulars does not proceed from the word; it is for tins reason that the opinion has been held that ‘what is denoted is what is expressed by the verb to be,—and not the Universal Cow, etc.’; the reason for which opinion lies in the fact that the qualifying factors—the Universal Cow and the word (name) ‘Cow’—are not cognised through the word.—Hence there is no incongruity in our opinion.”—(895)

The above is refuted in the following—[see verse 896 next]