________________
478
TATTVASANGRANA: OHAPTER XVI.
TEXT (882). INASMUCH AS THE REPUTATION OF SUBSTANCE, ETO. AND OF CONTAOT, HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY SET FORTH,-IT CANNOT BE RIGHT TO REGARD THESE AS TORMING THE REAL IMPORT' OF
WORDS.-(882)
COMMENTARY Having thus explained the impossibility of Convention regarding Specific Individualities, the Author proceeds to explain its impossibility regarding the other three-Universal, Connection of the Universal and That Which is Endowed with the Universal (as mentioned under 871) :
TEXT (883). THE UNIVERSAL AND THE CONNECTION HAVING BEEN ALREADY REJECTED IN DETAIL, THE OTHER THREE KINDS OT IMPORT OF WORDS
NO LONGER REMAIN POSSIBLE.-(883)
COMMENTARY The other', i.e. barring Specific Individuality, the three-(1) the Universal, (2) the Contact of the Universal, and (3) the One Endowed with the Universal.-As regards the Universal and its Connection, these simply do not exist ; and hence in regard to what is endowed with the Universal, also no Convention can be possible; as all naming is done only in reference to Universals; and that which is so endowed can only exist in the form of Specific Individuality; so that the objections urged against this last are equally applicable to the other also.
The Universal forms the denotation of words-says Katyāyana. Substance forms the denotation of words, says Vyādi. -Both (Universal and Substance) form the denotation of words, says Panini.-All these views become discarded by what has been said above; because the Universal can have no connection,-'Substance is of the nature of Specific Individuality'; and hence the objections urged against this latter remain applicable to it.-(883)
The Anthor sums up his position in the following
TEXT (884).
FOR THESE REASONS THE ASSERTION THAT THE INDIVIDUAL, THE CONFIGURATION AND THE UNIVERSAL ARE DENOTED BY WORDS IS IMPOSSIBLE; BECAUSE ALL THESE ARE
FORMLESS.-(884)
COMMENTARY. Tat-For these reasons. Formless '-Featureless ; devoid of character.-(884)
