Karṇakagomin analyzes one phase of the process from perception to verbal convention in his commentary on the “exclusion of superimposition” discussed in PV 1.48. The process includes the concept that “the direct object of words is the aspect, not the exclusion of others.” PVSVṬ ad PV 1.48 deals with Kumārila’s criticism of Dignāga’s claim in PS 5.14 that “the distinction of apoha depends on the distinction of what is excluded.” The process of apoha assumed by Kumārila in his criticism of Dignāga is very different from the process of apoha that Karṇakagomin reads into PV 1.48. Therefore, Kumārila’s criticism here is refuted by PV 1.48, but what Karṇakagomin emphasized in refuting Kumārila is that “the exclusion of others is not the direct object of words.”
