________________
EXAMINATION OF SAMANYA, TEE UNIVERSAL.
407
other than the Names and Ideas of the Body is absent; and hence the Reason adduced is also absent in them.
Uddyotakara (under Nyāyazārtila on 2. 2. 61, page 319 et seq.] has stated the argument as follows "The Idea pervading over all Cows proceeds from a Cause other than the Body, etc., --because it appears as a differentiator,like the Idea of the Blue, etc.-Or again, the Universal' Cow is something different from the individual Cow,—because it is the object of a different Idea,-like Colour and Touch, etc.,-elso because it is spoken of as belonging to this latter,-- just as the Horse is spoken of as belonging to Chaitra, and as something different from Chaitra."
All these arguments have been set forth in these Texts. They are easily intelligible.-(716-720)
The Author answers all these arguments in the following
TEXTS (721-722).
ALL THIS HAS NO ESSENCE IN IT; IT IS AN ELABORATION OF A MER THEORY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL IN SUPPORT OF IT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE NOTIONS OF BEING ', ETO. ARE NOT FOUND TO PROCEED FROM THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SENSE-ORGANS ; THEY ARISE TROM A BODY OF
CONVENTIONS.-(721-722)
COMMENTARY
It has been argued (under Text 714, above) that the fact of the notions of Being ', etc. being of the nature of Sense-perception is deduced from the presence of the operation of Sense-organs.-If, by the Reason here adduced, it is meant that the said notions follow immediately after the operation of the Senses, then it cannot be admitted ': because as they are of the nature of 'determinate Cognitions, the body of Conventions (bearing upon the verbal expression) must interpose (between the Sense-operation and the resultant Determinate Cognition).-1721-722)
It might be urged- without it comprehensivo something, how can mutually distinct entities become the basis, directly or indirectly, of the notion of identity or unity ?"
In anticipation of this question, the Author supplies the following explanation:
