0883 Verse 1222

Original

नामादियोजना चेयं स्वनिमित्तमनन्तरम् ।
आक्षिप्य वर्त्तते येन तेन नाप्रस्तुताभिधा ॥ १२२२ ॥

nāmādiyojanā ceyaṃ svanimittamanantaram |
ākṣipya varttate yena tena nāprastutābhidhā || 1222 ||

This ‘connection with name, etc.’ remains there after having indicated its own immediate cause; hence the assertion is not irrelevant.—(1222)

Kamalaśīla

Says the Opponent:—“Conceptual Content is a property of the Cognition; what forms the subject-matter of the present context is the view that the said Content is absent (in Sense-perception); as it is Sense-perception that is being considered; and it is not intended to expound the absence of the Object; as regards the ‘association of Name, Universal, etc.’, on the other hand, it is a property of the Object, not of the Cognition. So that what the pro-pounder of the Lakṣaṇa has asserted appears to be entirely irrelevant.”

Anticipating this criticism, the Author supplies the following answer:—[see verse 1222 above]

‘Anantaram’—immediate—‘nimittam’—cause; and that cause is in the form of the verbally-associated Idea;—and this is called ‘connection’ because it appears in a form envisaging two things;—and there is no connecting of one thing by another; as properties of things have no functions to perform.

The indication of this immediate cause is done in two ways; and why this ‘connection’ comes in has been explained.

The compound ‘nāmādiyojanā’ is to be explained as ‘that whereby the connection of the two things is brought about’; there being Bahuvrīhi compound even when there is no co-ordination between the factors concerned.—Or the compound may be explained on the basis of the assumption that the Cause is spoken of as the Effect. The purpose served by this indirect expression is that it serves to bring out the efficiency of the cause as bringing about an effect different from other causes.

[So that the expression ‘nāmādiyojanā’ stands, indirectly, for the Conceptual Content itself.]—(1222)