आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

कतमेन च शब्देन वाच्यत्वं परिपृच्छ्यते ।
अपोहस्य किमेतेन यदि वा किं घटादिना ॥ ११९५ ॥
शब्दार्थः किमपोहो वा विधिर्वेति निरूपणे ।
अपोह इति भात्येतद्यत्तदेवं प्रतीयते ॥ ११९६ ॥
प्रतिबिम्बं हि शब्दार्थ इति साक्षादियं मतिः ।
जात्यादिविधिहानिस्तु सामर्थ्यादवगम्यते ॥ ११९७ ॥
घटवृक्षादिशब्दाश्च तदेव प्रतिबिम्बकम् ।
ब्रुवन्ति जननात्साक्षादर्थादन्यत्क्षिपन्ति तु ॥ ११९८ ॥
तस्मान्न विधिदोषोऽस्ति नानिष्टा च प्रसज्यते ।
अवाच्यपक्षदोषस्तु तदनङ्गीकृतेर्न नः ॥ ११९९ ॥

katamena ca śabdena vācyatvaṃ paripṛcchyate |
apohasya kimetena yadi vā kiṃ ghaṭādinā || 1195 ||
śabdārthaḥ kimapoho vā vidhirveti nirūpaṇe |
apoha iti bhātyetadyattadevaṃ pratīyate || 1196 ||
pratibimbaṃ hi śabdārtha iti sākṣādiyaṃ matiḥ |
jātyādividhihānistu sāmarthyādavagamyate || 1197 ||
ghaṭavṛkṣādiśabdāśca tadeva pratibimbakam |
bruvanti jananātsākṣādarthādanyatkṣipanti tu || 1198 ||
tasmānna vidhidoṣo’sti nāniṣṭā ca prasajyate |
avācyapakṣadoṣastu tadanaṅgīkṛterna naḥ || 1199 ||

The ‘denotability’ that you ask about—is ‘denotability’ by which word? Is it ‘denotability’ by the word ‘Apoha’? Or by the wobd ‘jar’ and the best?—As regards the question—whether the Apoha that is denoted is itself of the nature of Apoha (negation, exclusion) or it is something positive,—when we come to think of it, what is cognised is the apoha that figures in the cognition.—Our view is that what is denoted by the word directly is the reflected image,—and as regards ‘the negation of other things’, like the universal etc.,—That is comprehended only indirectly, through implication.—What all such words as ‘jar’, ‘tree’ and the like denote is the said reflected image, as it is the cognition of this that they produce directly; and anything else, they imply only indirectly.—Thus then, there is no incongruity regarding the positive character; nor is there anything undesirable for us.—As regards the alternative of Apoha not being ‘denotable’,—that we do not accept; and hence that is not our view.—(1195-1199)

Kamalaśīla

As regards the optional alternatives put forward—regarding Apoha being different or non-different and so forth,—all that has been already discarded.

It has been asked (under Text 997, et seq., by Uddyotakara)—whether the Apoha is denoted or not denoted, etc. etc.—

The answer to that is as follows:—[see verses 1195-1199 above]

As regards the alternatives set forth regarding the denotability of ‘the exclusion of others’,—if it is urged in regard to the term ‘exclusion of others?’—then, inasmuch as it is held by us that what is denoted by this term is something positive,—that should not have been urged against us as an undesirable contingency.

That is to say, when the question is raised,—as to whether what is denoted by the word is something positive, or the ‘exclusion or negation of others’—and it is said that ‘it is the negation of others that is denoted by the word’,—there appears in the listener the idea envisaging the ‘negation of others’, in the form of a Reflected Image; and if there is an idea of the negation of positive entities as forming the denotation of the word, that comes only by implication.

If what is urged is with reference to the words ‘Jar’ and the like, then, what these words bring about directly is the Apoha in the shape of the Reflected Image, which is denoted by those words in the positive form, and the idea of the ‘negation of others’ is obtained by implication; so that there is no undesirable contingency for us.

Nor is our view open to the objection that there would be no resting ground or finality (in the assumption of Apoha after Apoha); because the ‘negation of others’ is held to be comprehended only by implication,—and hence to be only an appendage to actual Denotation the view that it is not expressed is not accepted by us; and hence there can be no room for those incongruities that have been urged against that view.—This is what is indicated by the words—‘As regards the alternative, etc. etc.’,—(1195-1199)