________________
144
F. W. Thomas, Mallişena's Syādvādamañjari
tion; because of the consequence of their being of one form. Therefore there is also difference of locus. Again, the self whereby it is locus of the universal and that whereby (it is locus) of the particular, does it accomodate both these selves with a single own-nature, or with two own-natures? If with only one, then there is contradiction as before. Or with two own-natures it accomodates a pair of own-natures called universality and particularity; then there is regressus ad infinitum. (198) 'Those two with two other own-natures and those with two other further own-natures'. The fault of confusion is that with what self there is accomodation of the universality, with that there is also of the universal and the particular; and that wherewith there is accomodation of the particular, thereby also of the particular and uni versal. With what own-nature there is universality, with the same particularity; that where with there is particularity, with the same universality; - this is 'interchange'. And thence there is doubt, because of incompetence to decide, the entity having no form common to both.
And thence there is failure of understanding; and thence failure to set out the subject of the proof. And, on the part of the Quodammodo doctrine, because it is in another class, these faults are without opening. And so by those who know the vital points of the Quodam. modo doctrine they are to be removed by such and such adjustments; because only through independence of mutually irrespective universality and particularity, having the form of affirmation and negation, is there an opening for them.
Or else, the term contradiction' here means fault, as in the acts contrarily', meaning 'blameworthy'. And so we must interpret as afraid of contradictions', the faults of contradiction, difference of locus and so forth. And similarly by the term 'universality' even all the instances of fault become included. This is the meaning of the verse.
