________________
The Nyaya Conception of Universals
made possible? Certainly a man would have to live for countless ages if he were to acquire this knowledge from direct acquaintance with all the individuals. But such a miracle is neither possible nor necessary. It is a simple intuition and is possible because the knowledge of one cow gives insight into the fundamental essence that makes a cow what it is. We know that whatever is to be a cow can be such provided it possesses that fundamental essence. And this essence is called the universal of the cow, because it is present in an unvariant manner in all cows in spite of the difference of shape, colour, dimension and such other qualities. These varying qualities do not affect the identity of the universal in the least. So when the Buddhist seeks to identify this universal with negation of the opposite he essays an impossible task, as the opposite' can be understood only in terms of a universal, which is sought to be denied by the theory. Jñanaśri and Ratnakīrti realized this truth and so conceded the positive nature of universals,1 while reserving the right to repudiate its ontologically objective status.
Dharmottara holds that the universal is a fiction of thought though it be a positive idea; but this is a contradiction in terms. A fiction is a non-entity and to say that it is positive is to erect a fiction into a positive entity. The question is whether the universal is felt or not. If it is felt it cannot be nothing. It has been contended in defence that it is not the universal as a felt idea that is denied, but its ontological reality which is riddled with insuperable logical difficulties. It is urged that the so-called universal, e.g., cow-universal or horse-universal, cannot be a positive real as it is understood by negation of its contradictory opposite. But the negation of the opposite cannot be regarded as proof of its unreality, as even the particular, which is regarded as real by the Buddhist, is also possessed of a negative character in that its reality is concomitant with the negation of its opposite. If it be held that the universal is devoid of a character and so cannot be regarded as a real, then again it becomes a non-entity and the old difficulty of non-entity being a content of thought crops up with all its consequences. Nor can the felt positivity of the universal as a
1. Op. cit., Chap. VII, and ATV, pp. 289 ff.
Jain Education International
219'
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org