आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

संमुखानेकसामान्यविषयश्च सकृच्छ्रुतः ।
निष्कृष्टं स्वार्थवाचित्वं गोशब्दो न प्रपद्यते ॥ २१३६ ॥
बहुभिः श्रवणैरेष प्राणित्वादीनि वर्जयन् ।
शुक्लादिगमनादीनि सास्नालाङ्गूलतादि च ॥ २१३७ ॥
शावलेयादिखण्डादिव्यक्तीः स्वस्वनिबन्धनाः ।
निष्कृष्टगोत्ववाचित्वं चिरेण प्रतिपद्यते ॥ २१३८ ॥

saṃmukhānekasāmānyaviṣayaśca sakṛcchrutaḥ |
niṣkṛṣṭaṃ svārthavācitvaṃ gośabdo na prapadyate || 2136 ||
bahubhiḥ śravaṇaireṣa prāṇitvādīni varjayan |
śuklādigamanādīni sāsnālāṅgūlatādi ca || 2137 ||
śāvaleyādikhaṇḍādivyaktīḥ svasvanibandhanāḥ |
niṣkṛṣṭagotvavācitvaṃ cireṇa pratipadyate || 2138 ||

“Inasmuch as the word, heard but once, envisages several ‘universals’ in an indefinite form, it cannot definitely point to its own specific denotation, as distinguished from the other ‘universals’—(until it has been used several times).—As a matter of fact, the word ‘cow’ would get at the specific denotation of the particular ‘universal’ ‘cow’ only after a long time when it has been heard several times, and has thereby excluded the other universals—‘living beings’, ‘the quality of whiteness’, the action of ‘moving’, the universals ‘dewlap’, ‘tail’, and also the individuals, the ‘cow of variegated colour’, the ‘hornless cow’ and the like,—which are diverse by reason of their individual peculiarities.”—[Ślokavārtika—eternality of words—364-366]—(2136-2138)

Kamalaśīla

This has been thus explained in the Bhāṣya (of Śabara, on Sū. 1. I. 19)—“If the word ‘Cow’ is eternal, it is the same word that is uttered many times and has been previously heard also several times, as applied to other individual Cows; and thus by a process of positive and negative concomitance the Word comes to he recognised as denoting the particular Universal; for this reason also, the Word must be eternal.”

‘Individuals which are diverse, etc. etc.’—i.e. distinguished by their respective peculiarities; their diversity is based upon their being cognised as different from one another. Hence the compound ‘svasvanibandhanāḥ’ is to be expounded to mean ‘which have their diversity based upon the cognition of their respective peculiarities’.

‘Having excluded’ has to be construed with all these.—(2136-2138)