Verse 3.1.7-8

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.1.7-8:

यथा रक्ते गुणे तत्त्वं कषाये व्यपदिश्यते ।
संयोगिसन्निकर्षाच्च वस्त्रादिष्वपि गृह्यते ॥ ७ ॥
तथा शब्दार्थसंबन्धाच्छब्दे जातिरवस्थिता ।
व्यपदेशेऽर्थजातीनां जातिकार्याय कल्पते ॥ ८ ॥

yathā rakte guṇe tattvaṃ kaṣāye vyapadiśyate |
saṃyogisannikarṣācca vastrādiṣvapi gṛhyate || 7 ||
tathā śabdārthasaṃbandhācchabde jātiravasthitā |
vyapadeśe'rthajātīnāṃ jātikāryāya kalpate || 8 ||

7-8. Just as ‘redness’, residing in the quality red is attributed to the substance ‘lac’ and then, on account of its intimate union with the intimately united, it is perceived in clothes etc., in the same way, on account of the intimate connection between word and meaning, the universal residing in the word performs the function of universal for the universals of objects also.

Commentary

The author now says how the universal of the word, existing in the word, can convey the universal of the object as identical with itself.

[Read verse 7-8 above]

[It was declared in the previous verse that the universal of the word is superimposed on that of the meaning and that the latter appears as one with the former. Here a doubt might arise: the universal of the word is inherent in the word and not in the meaning; how can it then denote the meaning through the relation of identity? This doubt is sought to be removed by means of an example. Redness is inherent in a particular case of red, in what is red. It is also attributed to the substance which is red. Due to contact with the substance which is red, redness is attributed to another object also like cloth when we speak of it as being red. In other words, due to the contact of the cloth with a substance which is red, the cloth is also said to be red. Similarly, there is the eternal relation between the word and its meaning, a relation which is grasped only at the time of the learning of the convention. This relation is evident from the fact that both about the word gauḥ and the object gauḥ, we can say: ayaṃ gauḥ. Through this relation, what belongs to the word is superimposed on the meaning. The universal of the word is superimposed on the universal of the meaning. The latter becomes the expressed meaning (vācya) of the former. Not only that. The universal of the word becomes a kind of universal among the different universals, though, according to the Vaiśeṣikas, there cannot be a universal of the universals. But the universal of the word plays the part of a universal among the universals of the meanings. It performs the two functions of such a universal. The two functions are: persistence of the same word (sabdānuvṛtti) and persistence of the same cognition (pratyayānuvṛtti). How this happens is explained in verses 9 and 10.

This universal of the word exists in the word considered as a unity and not in the different phonemes, because it is this unity which is expressive (vācaka). This unity is called vyaktisphoṭa and the universal, jāti, inheres in it. It is called jātisphoṭa. Thus sphoṭa is of two kinds. The particular relation through which vyaktisphoṭa expresses the meaning is fitness (yogyatā) which is eternal and not the work of man (apauruṣeya). When a meaning is understood from a word, it appears as one with it. With all that, the form of the meaning is not completely obliterated. When an object is revealed through light, it appears as enveloped in light, but with all that, its own form appears distinctly. Light and the word reveal other objects by superimposing their own form on them. This is the eternal character of words, not due to human agency. This can happen only in the case of one who knows a language. In the case of one who like a child does not know it yet, there cannot be superimposition of the word on the meaning, because he does not know the word yet. The universal of the object appears to him as distinct.]

How it performs the function of a universal is now explained.