0682 Verse 936

Original

न चादर्शनमात्रेण ताभ्यां प्रत्यायनं भवेत् ।
सर्वत्रैव ह्यदृष्टत्वात्प्रत्ययो न विशिष्यते ॥ ९३६ ॥

na cādarśanamātreṇa tābhyāṃ pratyāyanaṃ bhavet |
sarvatraiva hyadṛṣṭatvātpratyayo na viśiṣyate || 936 ||

“They could not signify anything by mere non-perception; because non-perception being common in all cases, there could be no distinction.—[Ślokavārtika-Apoha 75]—(936)

Kamalaśīla

It might be argued that—even without their concomitance being apprehended, the Word and the Indicative would indicate their object merely through the ‘non-perception of the heterogeneous’,

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 936 above]

‘Mere’;—this serves to exclude the perception of concomitance.

Question:—Why could not they signify it?

Answer:—‘Because non-perception, etc. etc.’—‘In all cases’—i.e. in regard to heterogeneous things, to homogeneous things, and also to the particular thing concerned.—Hence there could be no such distinctive cognitions as—‘this is the thing itself’, and ‘that is something else’; in fact, the word could not indicate its own objective; as the concomitance would be not-apprehended there also, just as in any other thing.

In some places the reading is ‘pratyāyyo’ (in place of ‘pratyayo’); in which case the meaning is that there could be no distinction in the thing indicated;—i.e. it could not differ.

In this way, there being a possibility of the loss of validity of the operation of Words and Indicatives, it cannot be right to regard the Apoha as the Import of Words.—(936)