0677 Verse 930-931

Original

तथैवाधारभेदेनाप्यस्य भेदो न युज्यते ।
न हि सम्बन्धिभेदेन भेदो वस्तुन्यपीष्यते ॥ ९३० ॥
किमुतावस्त्वसंसृष्टमव्यावृत्तं निवर्त्तते ।
अनवाप्तविशेषांशं यत्किमप्यनिरूपितम् ॥ ९३१ ॥

tathaivādhārabhedenāpyasya bhedo na yujyate |
na hi sambandhibhedena bhedo vastunyapīṣyate || 930 ||
kimutāvastvasaṃsṛṣṭamavyāvṛttaṃ nivarttate |
anavāptaviśeṣāṃśaṃ yatkimapyanirūpitam || 931 ||

“In the same manner, its diversity cannot be due to the diversity of its substratum;—diversity in the relative of a thing does not justify the assumption of diversity in the thing also. How much less there is exclusion possible for that which is a non-entity, unrelated, undifferentiated, unspecified, vague and undetermined?”—[Ślokavārtika-Apoha 48-49]—(930-931)

Kamalaśīla

It might be argued that—in that ease the inner correlates in the shape of the substrata themselves may be taken as serving the purposes of the differentiation.

The answer to this is provided in the following—[see verses 930-931 above]

‘Its’—of Apoha.

Why is it not possible?

Answer—‘Diversity in the relative, etc. etc.’;—the idea that the nonentity cannot be diversified by the diversity of its relative—because it has no character at all,—may rest for a while; as regards entities also, no diversity is ever found to be due to the diversity in relatives; for instance, when Devadatta, who is a single entity, occupies, either simultaneously or successively, different seats, he continues to be perceived as the same without having become diverse. How much more so is this then in the case of the ‘exclusion of others’, which is a pure non-entity? Because it is a nonentity, therefore it is ‘unrelated’—not connected with anything,—‘undifferentiated’—not distinguished from anything heterogeneous,—simply because it is a non-entity; for the same reason, it is also ‘unspecified’;—how can such a non-entity acquire diversity merely through diversity in its relatives?—(930-931)