________________
OF WORDS
359
explain their reference to individual objects by any process of transference of meaning.
The Naiyāyikas reject the above view of the import of words. If a word mean an individual as such, then any word could mean any and every individual. A word, however, does not mean any individuals, but the individuals of a certain class. In such expressions as that cow stands,' etc., what is meant by the word cow is not the mere individual by itself but the individual as distinguished by the generality of cowness. Hence it is not true to say that words denote individuals only. Although words do not, by themselves, mean individuals, yet they may refer to individual objects by reason of the individuals' association or connection with the primary meaning.'
The second view about the import of words, which is accepted by the Jainas and others, is that a word denotes the particular form or configuration of individuals.? The form (ākrtı) of a thing consists in the particular arrangement of its component parts and the constituent particles of those parts “The form of a thing is that wbich indicates the generality and its characteristics." Things are distinguished from one another by their peculiar forms. The cow 18 differentiated from all other animals by its form which consists in the collocation of the dewlap, etc. Words di note objects only as they express their forms or configurations in spice, by which their nature is determined. Hence a word must primarily mean the form or the structure which determines the individuality of an object. The Naijāyikas reject this view also on the ground that the form by itself is not sufficient to constitute the nature of a thing. The clay model of a cow is not what we mean by a cow, although it possesses the form of a cow. Hence a word should not be
1 Vide NS. & NB., 2.2. 58.69. 2 Vide V10oranaprameyasangraha, p. 181.
