0732 Verse 1016

Original

अर्थान्तरव्यवच्छेदं कुर्वती श्रुतिरुच्यते ।
अभिधत्त इति स्वार्थमित्येतदविरोधि तत् ॥ १०१६ ॥

arthāntaravyavacchedaṃ kurvatī śrutirucyate |
abhidhatta iti svārthamityetadavirodhi tat || 1016 ||

When the word brings about the exclusion of other things, it is said to ‘denote its own meaning’; and there is no incongruity in this.—(1016)

Kamalaśīla

As against the Revered Diṅnāga, Uddyotakara has urged the following (in Nyāyavārtika, 2. 2. 63, pages 333-334):—“If the Apoha is not denoted by the word (‘Apoha’), then you have to explain what the word can signify apart from what is denotable by it? If that same (Apoha itself) forms the denotation of the word, then, this would be incompatible with your declaration that ‘a word is said to denote something when it is found that it brings about, in its denotation, the exclusion of what is denoted by other words’; as the only meaning that this declaration could have (under the theory that Apoha is not denoted) would be that the non-denotative word denotes something—(which is absurd)

The following Text proceeds to explain that this assertion has been made through ignorance of the meaning of the words (of the Teacher), and to show that there is no incongruity in those words:—[see verse 1016 above]

The Specific Individuality also is the word’s ‘own meaning’, by implication,—as explained before;—and when in its ‘own meaning’ in the shape of the Specific Individuality, the Word brings about—produces—the ‘exclusion of other things’—i.e. the Apoha in the form of Reflection, as excluded (distinguished) from other Reflections,—then it is said to ‘denote’ it. And there is nothing incongruous in the words of our Teacher.—(1016)