Verse 982-988

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

सर्वशब्दस्य कश्चार्थो व्यवच्छेद्यः प्रकल्प्यते ।
नासर्वनाम किञ्चिद्धि भवेद्यस्य निराक्रिया ॥ ९८२ ॥
एकाद्यसर्वमिति चेदर्थापोहः प्रसज्यते ।
अङ्गानां प्रतिषिद्धत्वादनिष्टेश्चाङ्गिनः पृथक् ॥ ९८३ ॥
एवं समूहशब्दार्थे समुदायिव्यपोहतः ।
अन्यानिष्टेश्च सर्वेऽपि प्राप्नुवन्ति निरर्थकाः ॥ ९८४ ॥
द्व्यादिशब्दा इहेष्टाश्च ये समुच्चयगोचराः ।
एकादिप्रतिषेधेन न भवेयुस्तथाविधाः ॥ ९८५ ॥
नागौरिति च योऽपोहो गोशब्दस्यार्थ उच्यते ।
स किं भावोऽथवाऽभावो भावो गौर्वाऽथवाऽप्यगौः ॥ ९८६ ॥
गौश्चेन्नास्ति विवादोऽयमर्थस्तु विधिलक्षणः ।
अगौर्गोशब्दवाच्यश्चेदतिशब्दार्थकौशलम् ॥ ९८७ ॥
अभावोऽपि न युक्तोऽयं प्रैषादीनामसम्भवात् ।
न हि गोशब्दतः कश्चिदभावं प्रतिपद्यते ॥ ९८८ ॥

sarvaśabdasya kaścārtho vyavacchedyaḥ prakalpyate |
nāsarvanāma kiñciddhi bhavedyasya nirākriyā || 982 ||
ekādyasarvamiti cedarthāpohaḥ prasajyate |
aṅgānāṃ pratiṣiddhatvādaniṣṭeścāṅginaḥ pṛthak || 983 ||
evaṃ samūhaśabdārthe samudāyivyapohataḥ |
anyāniṣṭeśca sarve'pi prāpnuvanti nirarthakāḥ || 984 ||
dvyādiśabdā iheṣṭāśca ye samuccayagocarāḥ |
ekādipratiṣedhena na bhaveyustathāvidhāḥ || 985 ||
nāgauriti ca yo'poho gośabdasyārtha ucyate |
sa kiṃ bhāvo'thavā'bhāvo bhāvo gaurvā'thavā'pyagauḥ || 986 ||
gauścennāsti vivādo'yamarthastu vidhilakṣaṇaḥ |
agaurgośabdavācyaścedatiśabdārthakauśalam || 987 ||
abhāvo'pi na yukto'yaṃ praiṣādīnāmasambhavāt |
na hi gośabdataḥ kaścidabhāvaṃ pratipadyate || 988 ||

“In the case of the word ‘all’ (‘sarva’) what is it that is assumed to be the ‘excluded’? There is no such thing as the non-all, which could be excluded.—If it be urged that ‘one and the rest’ are the non-all, then it comes to be the exclusion of the denotation itself; as the parts would be excluded, and no whole is admitted.—Similarly, in regard to the denotation of the word ‘group’ (‘samūha’), the constituents would be excluded; and nothing apart from this is admitted; hence all such words become deprived of their meaning.—As regards the words ‘two’ and the rest, which also are applied to groups, as the ‘one’ and other constituents would be excluded, they could no longer be so applicable.—Then again, the denotation of the word ‘cow’ is said to be the ‘non-non-cow’;—now is this positive or negative? If it is positive, is it the cow or the non-cow?—If it is the cow, then there is no dispute; as the denotation turns out to be of the positive character. On the other hand, if it is the non-cow that is denoted by the word ‘cow’,—that would exhibit a wonderful insight into the meanings of words indeed!—Nor can it be negative; as, in that case injunction and the rest would not be possible.—Nor does any one ever comprehend a negation from the word ‘cow’.”—(982-988)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Uddyotakara has argued as follows:—“It cannot be right to say that words denote the Apoha of other things; because this explanation cannot apply to all words; that is to say, in the case of words where there are two mutually exclusive contradictions, it may be that when one is affirmed the other is denied; as for instance, it may be true that when the word ‘Cow’ is heard, the Cow is affirmed and the non-Cow is denied. But this is not possible in the case of the word ‘Sarva’ (‘all’), as there is no suchng as non-all, which could be denied by the word ‘all’.—‘But in this case also, there is denial or preclusion of one and the rest; so that our explanation takes in this case also—You mean that one and the rest are the contradictories of all, the non-all which are excluded by the word ‘all’.—But this is not right; as it involves the incongruity of words abandoning their own meaning. If the word ‘all’ excludes one and the rest,—inasmuch as these latter are what go to make up the All, and (for the Buddhist) the whole has no existence apart from its constituents, the exclusion of one and the rest would mean the exclusion of everything that goes to make up the All, and there would be nothing left for the word ‘all’ to denote: and this word would thus become meaningless.—[The word ‘aṅga’ stands for part].—Similarly all collective words, like ‘group’ and the rest, would become meaningless, if they were used for the exclusion of their own constituents; as it is held that the group has no existence apart from the members that make up that group.—As for the words ‘two’ and the rest, they also pertain to groups (of Two, Three, etc.); so that, if they denoted the exclusion of one and the rest,—as these, being precluded, would not be there to make up the said groups, the words would become meaningless.”

This is the argument that is indicated by the words—‘They would not be so applicable’ (Text 985). What is meant is that the words in question are accepted as applicable to groups; but they would cease to be so applicable.

“Further, when it is asserted that what the word ‘Cow’ denotes is the ‘Apoha of other things’,—i.e. something that is ‘not non-Cow’,—is this something (A) Positive or (B) Negative?—(A) If it is Positive, is it the Cow or the non-Cow?—If it is the Cow, then there is no quarrel between us.—If it is the non-Cow that is held to be denoted by the word ‘Cow’,—this shows a wonderful insight into the meanings of words!—(B) Nor can it be something Negative; as nothing negative can form the subject of any injunction or comprehension thereof; as a matter of fact, when one hears the word ‘Cow’, neither the Injunction nor its comprehension pertains to anything merely negative.”

This is the argument that is indicated in the words ‘Nor can it be negative, etc., etc.’—‘Praiṣa’ stands for Praiṣaṇa, Injunction; that is, the urging of the hearer by the Speaker to something; this belongs to the Speaker; while ‘Comprehension’ belongs to the hearer.—The term ‘and the rest’ is meant to include such nouns as ‘carrier’, ‘milker’ and the like.

Lastly, it is by actual experience that the meaning of words is comprehended; and as a matter of fact, no one ever comprehends negation from the word ‘Cow’,—(982-988)