0735 Verse 1020

Original

दिवाभोजनवाक्यादेरिवास्यापि फलद्वयम ।
साक्षात्सामर्थ्यतो यस्मान्नान्वयोऽव्यतिरेकवान् ॥ १०२० ॥

divābhojanavākyāderivāsyāpi phaladvayama |
sākṣātsāmarthyato yasmānnānvayo’vyatirekavān || 1020 ||

As in the case of the sentence speaking of ‘not eating at night’, the word in question has two fruits (resultants),—one direct and the other by implication; and it is so because there is no affirmation entirely without negation.—(1020)

Kamalaśīla

It has been urged (under 913 above) that—“words have their fruits in Cognitions, and any one word cannot have two fruits, etc. etc.”

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 1020 above]

In the case of the sentence ‘Fat Devadatta does not eat during the day’, the direct meaning consists of the denial of ‘eating during the day’, and the implied meaning consists of the affirmation of ‘eating during the night’; in the same manner, in the case of the word ‘Cow’, which is affirmative (positive) in character, the idea of affirmation is the direct resultant, and the idea of negation is the indirect resultant due to implication.

The reason for this is stated—‘And it is because, etc. etc?;—because there is no affirmation without negation; in fact, affirmation is always concomitant with the negation of the unlike; as there can be nothing which is not excluded (differentiated) from things unlike itself.

Thus there is nothing incongruous in a single word having two resultants.—(1020)

Question:—“Why is it so?”

Answer:—[see verse 1021 next]