________________
FOREWORD.
·
OXXI
4. This generality remains only in substance, quality and action, because generality is unnecessary in other kinds of knowledge, as they are not many, and as there is no such knowledge which feels their generality.
Refutation. 1. The categories having already been refuted, there is neither existence nor substances in them. The knowledge such as it is existent, or it is a substance, etc., is only the outcome of experience and memory of the words concerned. A man does not know a thing to be existent in the beginning, but he learns that from the elders. Afterwards, whenever he sees a thing he remembers its similarity with the previously experienced things, and uses the same word.
2. The existence of generality cannot be proved by inference, because the knowledge of the existence of a particular thing does not feel anything else than the thing itself. When we say it exists we do not feel anything else in the thing which may be called existence.
3. If you hold that one generality belongs to all cows, even then that generality cannot be eternal and one. Had it been so, the knowledge of cow, etc. will always appear because its cause is always present. Persons who are cooks by profession are called cooks. Do you want to ccept any genus as Pacakatva? Similarly, nonexistence is always known by the word "non-existence." To justify this do you want to establish a genus in non-existence also ? If you hold that the same action is the reason for designating the cooks as cooks, then it will not be correct, because action differs in each individual of the group. If you put forth similarity of action as the reason, then the reply will be the same in the case of cows also. Why then do you want to establish a different genus as eternal in the cows ?
4. As soon as a pot is produced, wherefrom does the genus get united with the pot? Is it because the Ghatatva of other pots is moving about, leaving its own support (i. e., the pots) in order to get united with the newly created pot? If so, how can the