________________
EXAMINATION OF THE IMPORT OF WORDS.
583
TEXT (1131). IF THE FEMININE AND THE BEST BE HELD TO BE SO MANY DIFFERENT UNIVERSALS,—THEN ALL SUCH SHOULD BE REGARDED AS
DISCARDED BY THE REJECTION OF THE
UNIVERSAL ITSELF.-(1131)
COMMENTARY.
On a previous occasion, in course of the Examination of the Universal', all particular Universals also have been discarded; hence there can be no such particular Universals as Feminine ' and the rest. Hence the definition provided is an impossible' one.-(1131)
Then again, in connection with the particular Universals, we find,-even without any other Universal, the application of such words as jätih' (Feminine), bhavah? (Masculine), samanyam' (Neuter) ;-hence the definition provided turns out to be too narrow'.-This is what is shown in the following:
TEXT (1132).
SUCH WORDS ARE APPLIED TO PARTIOULAR UNIVERSALS, AS jātin' (FEMININE), bhāvah '(MASCULINE) AND samanyam' (NEUTER). NOR IS IT POSSIBLE FOR UNIVERSALS TO SUBSIST IN
OTHER UNIVERSALS THEMSELVES.-(1132)
COMMENTARY.
Nor is it possible, etc. etc..-Because the doctrine of the other party) is that Universals are devoid of Universals. This has been said on the basis of the doctrine of the Vaishēşiktas.
The Vaiyāloraranas, Grammarians, however regard Universals as subsisting in Universals also; ay declared in the following passage-'Even when the object and the Universal are denoted, all words are denotative of the Universal, inasmuch as all things exist in the form of their functions (Vakya padiya, 3. 16), -What these people mean is as follows The theories laid down in regard to Universals by other philosophers need not necessarily be accepted by Grammariang; as a matter of fact, Universals are inferred from the effects of the functions of the connection between the word and the resultant cognition, and there can be no limit placed upon such Universals. Hence the basis of the term 'Universals' consists in that Universal which has a common substratum as inferred from the perception of the effects of the said functions. What is meant by the Universal existing in the form of their functions' is that their special character is restricted by the functions of the word and the resultant Idea.
This theory should be taken as rejected by what has been said (under Text 1131, second line) that all such Universals should be taken as dis
