________________
642
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XVII.
and in this way they bring about a division between the use of the two names, Universal' and Particular -(1277)
The above criticism of Sumati's is answered in the following
TEXTS (1278-1279).
IF THE SAID SIMILARITY' AND DISSIMILARITY' ARE HELD TO DIEFERENTIATED, THEN THE FACT OF THE UNIVERSAL BEING DISTINGUISHED FROM THE PARTICULARS REMAINS AS BEFORE.-IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY ARE NOT HELD TO BE DIFFERENTIATED, THEN, HOW CAN THE CLEARLY MARKED DIVISION BE POSSIBLE, WITHOUT CROSSING EACH OTHER ? THERE IS NO OTHER WAY IN WHICH THEY COULD BE CONCEIVED.
(1278-1279)
COMMENTARY.
Differentiated' -Not mixed up: i.e. the Universal being one thing and the Particular being another thing.
That the Universal is distinguished from the Particular is said only by way of illustration; in fact the Particular also is distinguished from the Universal; as both these having distinct characters are clearly distinguished from one another
The fact, elo. Asandirna' is unmixed. This has been declared by the same Sumati in the following words-" The Particular is perceived only as infused with the character of such Universals as 'Being' and the like, not otherwise ; hence it is only right that what is qualified should form the object of # qualified (determinate, conceptual) Perception; as for the Universal, on the other hand, it is capable of being perceived independently of all Particulars; and hence there can be nothing incongruous in its forming the object of the non-conceptual Perception " -This clearly marked distinction would not be there.
It might be argued that "It is not held to be either distinguished or undistinguished."
The angwer to that is How can, etc. etc. '-As a matter of fact, among things so related that the presence or absence of one must imply the absence or presence of another, the negation of one is inseparable from the affirmation of another; consequently, there can be no other alternative.-(1278. 1279)
Then again, to speak of the Particulars as apprehended without distinction' involves a contradiction in terms. This is what is shown in the following
