________________
EXAMINATION OF SĀMĀNYA', THE UNIVERSAL'.
433
notion which indicates Prior Negation as something different from the thing concerned, and related to it by the relation of Qualification and Qualified; it is on this imaginary basis that the relation of Qualification and Qualified is mentioned, and there is no such relation in reality ;-just as in the case of the picture drawn by an artist, the qualities of bravery' and the like are assumed. In cases where you postulate the said relation of Qualification and Qualified,-some other relation (as its basis) has surely to be looked for ; otherwise there would be no regularity or restriction(785-786)
The following Tect proceeds to show that the answer given by ShankaraSuximin is not relevant to the objection urged by us
TEXT (787).
THE OBJBUTION URGED BY US WAS IN REGARD TO SUOH NOTIONS AS THIS NEGATION','THAT NEGATION. AS REGARDS THE UNIVERSAL'SUBSISTING IN THE ADJUNCT, THAT SUBSISTS
ONLY IN ITS OWN SUBSTRATUM.(787)
COMMENTARY.
What we had urged was as follows:- In the case of the Negation of the Jar, the Negation of the Cloth, the Vegation of the Hare's Horn and so forthwe find the comprehensive notion of Negation' appearing, even when there is no such Universal' as 'Negation', hence in other cases also the assumption of the Universal' is useless; and we did not raise the objection against the 'Prior Negation and other Negations that are conceived of in connection with a large number of things of the same kind.
"If that is so, what then?"
As regards the Universal' subsisting in the adjunct, etc., etc.—That is, the Universal. Jar' subsisting in the adjunct, the particular Jar, subsists only in its own substratum,-i.e, only in the Jar, not in the Cloth and other things. How then could there arise, from that, the notion regarding the 'Prior' and other Negations of such heterogeneous things as the Cloth and the rest ? This is what is meant.—(787)
It might be argued that there is one all-embracing Universal overywhere the answer to that is as follows
28
