________________
On the Symbol
81 material point of view only, whereas the real is experienced by the point of view of the mode only. The first has two varieties-the generic and the empirical, because the nondistinguished which cognises the general is included in the generic and the non-distinguished which cognises the particular is included in the empirical point of view. The fourthe analytic etc.-are the varieties of the second. This has been said in accordance with ācārya Şiddhasena by the reverend Jinabhadra Gaņi kşamā śramaņa in the Višeşāvasyaka : names etc. belong to the substantial and the real to the modal point of view. The generic and the empirical are the varieties of the first and the rest of the second (75).
He expresses his own point of view at the time of discussing the symbol of salutation etc : the verbal point accepts all the symbols [2847], By this statement, he means to say that all the three verbal points of view accept only the real, as being pure, and the other four-analytic etc.-accept all the four symbols because of impurity. Some others hold that the analytic point of view accepts the name-symbol and the real only; this is not so; because the Sūtra scriptures declare that the substantial symbol is accepted by the analytic point of view, but it negates the acceptance of difference. Thus, the sūtra says : 'from the analytic point of view a person, who is not engaged in its conscious activity, is essentially one object, because this point of view does not accept the difference' [Anuyoga sūtra, 14] And how will it not accept the image symbol, which has the shape of Indra and by looking at whom, the word 'Indra is uttered; while it accepts even the gold, which has not assumed any shape, in the from of a lump, as being the cause of the real modes of would-be necklace etc. ? The name, of course, is not illogical with reference to the visible. Moreover, why shall it not accept the name and the image symbols, which are not different from the cause of the real, while it accepts only the word 'Indra’ etc. or only that which is indicated by the word 'Indra' etc. even when there is no reality ? Their acceptance would rather be more justificable; because of the reason that the substance in the form
