________________
16
SAMBODHI
Now, it is not only this kārikā that has close connections with the notion of dravya 'substance'; also in the remaining part of GunasamuddesaHel (VP 3.5 or the Gunasamuddesa of the mss), the notion of dravya 'substance' plays a basic role. In kārikā VP 3.5.1-2 (which would be kārikās 4 and 5 of Guņa-samuddesaHel), guna 'quality' is defined only in relation to dravya “substance'41 : 1. Whatever is in combination and differentiates and is understood with (that) function, is
said to be a guna 'quality in the science (of grammar) on account of its dependence. 2. The differentiating guna 'quality' that belongs to the inexpressible dravya 'substance'
(and) that is assumed in order to express it, of that (differentiating quality) degree is
designated. The word dravya is also used in kārikās 7-9; and in 3,4 and 5 it is referred to as pradhāna 'the main thing' (3,4) and vastu 'object' or 'thing-as-it-is' (5)
What exactly is meant by this guna, defined in dependence on dravya 'substance'?42 From the definition in the two kārikās translated above, one things is very clear : Bhartrhari's guna is here not the same as the Vaisesikas' guna 'quality'. For, in Bhartrhari's definition anything that differentiates and is dependent on a substance is called guna. In the Vaisesika-system, however, many other entities may be related to a substance and specify it, not only gunas 'qualities' in the strict sense (colour,etc.),but also karmas ‘actions' and sāmānyas ‘universals'.43 Nor is it clear that the concepts of dravya 'substance and guna 'quality should be understood in the light of the Samkhyā view, namely that the dravya is just a collection or coming togather of gunas.44 Here in VP 3.5.1, guna, as something contrasting with and related to dravya 'substance', seems even to comprise what has been called 'universal' elsewhere. This is not explicitly stated in the Guna-samuddesa. But there are some reasons to believe that this was nevertheless Bhartrhari's intention.
First of all, according to 3.5.1 anything that differentiates is to be considered a guna 'quality'. From this one may infer that a universal is a guna 'quality' inasmuch as it differentiates. In the Vaisesika-system, this differentiating function of at least some universals seems to have been accepted since an early time.45 In the Jāti-samuddesa itself, not much attention is paid to the differentiating function of a universal, but rather to its function of inclusion, and its permanence. One place which is of interest is 3.13b, according to which the universal secondarily indicates a capacity (jātih saktyupalaksanam). The fact that here a capacity is only secondarily indicated is in accordance with the main thesis in this chapter : that primarily the universal is expressed by a word. But then, this universal does indicate or define (laks) also something else.
In the MBhD it is said with so many words that 'universals etc.' differentiate substance: “But universals etc. differentiate the substance in order to convey its existence; they are the limiting features of the word.”46 There is also a MBhD-passage (MBHD 66:26.23ff) which attributes to the one who accepts universlas as primary, the dictum: "There is no understanding with regard to a thing to be differentiated if the
