________________
EXAMINATION OF THE IMPORT OF WORDS.
471
place, etc.; and as such, they never become inter-related among themselves. Consequently, when a man has set up a Convention in regard to one of these individuals, he could not carry on usage, on that basis, in regard to other individuals.—In the phrase 'manifestation and the real', the term 'the rest' is meant to include Colour, Shape, Condition and other peculiarities.
18 nover met with in actual usage' ;-what is meant is that, in this way, there being no Convention in regard to it, the Reason adduced by the Author cannot be said to be 'unproven'.
That the Reason is not Inconclusive' is shown by the words- That in regard to which no Convention has been comprehender, etc. etc.'
Like any other thing': -i.e. like things of other kinds. Dhranēh ', -Through Words.
What is meant is as follows: If the Word denoted a thing in regard to which no Convention has been apprehended, then the term 'Cow' also should denote the Horse ; and in that case, the making of Conventions would bo useless. Hence the possibility of this anomaly annuls the contrary conclusion; and thereby the Author's Premise becomes established.
This same Reason, Because no Convention can be made, has been indicated by the Teacher Dirināga in the declaration-The Word denoting a Universal cannot be denotative of Individuals, because of endlessness; whet is meant by endlessness' is the impossibility of Convention.
This also sets aside the following argument of Uddyolakara (Nyāyavārtika 2. 2. 63, p. 327):-"If you make Words' the subject of your argument, then, as endlessness is a property of things (denoted by words), it would be a Reason that subsists elsewhere than the Subject. If, on the other hand, the diverse things themselves are the subject, then neither affirmative nor negative corroborative Instances would be available. So that endlessness cannot serve as a valid Reason",
The same writer has also urged as follows (in Nyāyavartáka 2. 2. 63, page 326) “The objection urged is applicable to those (Buddhists) who hold that what are denoted by words are things without any qualifications ; as for ourselves, what are denoted by words aro Substances, Qualities and Actions as qualified by Being, etc.; so that wherever one perceives the Universal * Being', etc., one uses the word 'existent' and so forth. The Universal 'Being' is one only; hence in regard to things characterised by that Universal, it is quite possible to set up Conventions. So that endlessness cannot serve as a valid reason for you."
This is not right. It has been already proved that there are no such real entities as Universals like 'Being and the rest which are either different or non-different from individual things-But even granting that there is such a thing as the Universal ;-even so, as it is possible for several Universals to subsist in one Individual, there could be no rise of such words as 'Being' and the like, free irom confusion. Further, until it has been explained by means of words that 'Being is so and so', the person making the Convention could not indicate the things denoted by those words by means of 'Being and other Universals ;-and until the Convention has been made, words like Being', etc. cannot be used. So that there would be the incon. gruity of mutual interdependence.
