________________
140
NYĀYA AND JAINA EPISTEMOLOGY
have objective reality independent of the particular objects. Universal is the common essence in different individuals of a class. As opposed to realism, conceptualism holds that universals are mind dependent. They do not have independent existence apart from particulars. “Universal is not separate from the individuals but is identical with them in point of existence”. It is not anything like a separate essence but is in the individual object. Nominalism believes that only particulars are real; universals are only mental concepts. They do not stand for any positive essence that is present in individual. So universals are mere names.
In Indian philosophy, Nyāya-Vaiseșika view of universal is realistic, while Buddhists are nominalists. Jainas are conceptualists though their conceptualism tends towards realism. In fact, Jain view can be identified with what is called in modern times resemblance theory of universal propounded by Russell. It is not a separate essence but ‘similarity' which is the basis of classification of objects. It is different from identity. This theory attributes objective reality to universals; but denies that they have separate existence. Universal exists concretely as an element of the individual.
Nyāya View of Universals
Nyāya philosophers accept the view that corresponding to general term or class-concept in our mind, there is a real entity called universal. It is one single essence present in many individuals of a class. Universal is defined as what produces similar cognition and is one, eternal and inheres in many individuals. It is one of the categories of reality. Unlike nominalistic Buddhists, they maintain that the universal is not merely mental idea, it is as real as individual
