Verse 1132

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

जातिर्भावश्च सामान्यमिति वा तेषु संमतम् ।
न सामान्यानि युज्यन्ते सामान्येष्वपराणि हि ॥ ११३२ ॥

jātirbhāvaśca sāmānyamiti vā teṣu saṃmatam |
na sāmānyāni yujyante sāmānyeṣvaparāṇi hi || 1132 ||

Such words are applied to particular universals, as ‘jātiḥ’ (feminine), ‘bhāvaḥ’ (masculine) and ‘sāmānyam’ (neuter). nor is it possible for universals to subsist in other universals themselves.—(1132)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

‘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 Vaiśeṣikas.

The Vaiyākaraṇas, Grammarians, however regard Universals as subsisting in Universals also; as 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 (Vākyapadīya, 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 Grammarians; 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 he 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 discarded by the rejection of the Universal itself (in the chapter on Universals).’—(1132)