0838 Verse 1160-1161

Original

वाक्यार्थेऽन्यनिवृत्तिश्च सुज्ञातैव तथा ह्यसौ ।
पदार्था एव सहिताः केचिद्वाक्यार्थ उच्यते ॥ ११६० ॥
तेषां च ये विजातीयास्तेऽपोह्याः सुपरिस्फुटाः ।
वाक्यार्थस्यापि ते चैव तेभ्योऽन्यो नैव सोऽस्ति हि ॥ ११६१ ॥

vākyārthe’nyanivṛttiśca sujñātaiva tathā hyasau |
padārthā eva sahitāḥ kecidvākyārtha ucyate || 1160 ||
teṣāṃ ca ye vijātīyāste’pohyāḥ suparisphuṭāḥ |
vākyārthasyāpi te caiva tebhyo’nyo naiva so’sti hi || 1161 ||

‘The exclusion of others’ is clearly understood in the case of the meaning of a sentence. it is only the denotations of certain words construed together that is spoken of as ‘the meaning of the sentence’; what would be ‘excluded’ by these words would clearly be the things different from those denoted by these words; so that the same would be ‘excluded’ by the meaning of the sentence also. Because the meaning of the sentence is nothing apart from the meanings of the words (composing it).—(1160-1161)

Kamalaśīla

It has been argued (under Text 978, by Kumārila) that—“In the case of the meaning of the Sentence, ‘exclusion of other things’ cannot be indicated”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 1160-1161 above]

‘Construed together’—Related, as cause and effect.

‘Things excluded’—by the words.

Objection:—“The denotation of words is one thing, and totally different from that is the meaning of the Sentence; why then is it said that what are ‘excluded’ by the denotation of the words would also be ‘excluded’ by the meaning of the sentence?”

Answer:—‘It is nothing apart from that’;—the meaning of the sentence is not anything different from the denotations of the words,—in the shape of something of a mixed character, like the colour of the Kalmāṣa; because such a thing, if it existed, would be perceived, and yet it is not perceived.—(1160-1161)

This same idea is made clearer by means of an Example:—[see verse 1162 next]