Sarvadarshanasangraha 13.74

13.74

jātiśabdārthavācino vājapyāyanasya mate gavādayaḥ śabdā bhinnadravyasamavetajātim abhidadhati/ tasyām avagāhyamānāyāṃ tatsaṃbandhāt dravyam avagamyate/ śuklādayaḥ śabdā guṇasamavetāṃ jātim ācakṣate/ guṇe tatsaṃbandhāt pratyayaḥ/ dravye saṃbandhisaṃbandhāt/ saṃjñāśabdānām utpattiprabhṛty ā vināśāc chaiśavakaumārayauvanādyavasthādibhede ’pi sa evāyam ity abhinnapratyayabalāt siddhā devadattatvādijātir abhyupagantavyā/ kriyāsv api jātir ālakṣyate/ saiva dhātuvācyā/ pacatītyādāv anuvṛttapratyayasya prādurbhāvāt/ dravyapadārthavādivyāḍinaye śabdasya vyaktir evābhidheyatayā pratibhāsate/ jātis tūpalakṣaṇatayeti nānantyādidoṣāvakāśaḥ/ pāṇinyācāryasyobhayaṃ saṃmatam/ yato jātipadārtham abhyupagamya jātyākhyāyām ekasmin bahuvacanam anyatarasyām ityādivyavahāraḥ/ dravyapadārtham aṅgīkṛtya sarūpāṇām ekaśeṣa ekavibhaktau ityādiḥ/ vyākaraṇasya sarvapārṣadatvān matadvayābhyupagame na kaścid virodhaḥ/ tasmād advayaṃ satyaṃ paraṃ brahmatattvaṃ sarvaśabdārtha iti sthitam/ tad uktam:

According to the opinion of Vājapyāyana, who maintains that all words mean a genus, words like "cow," &c.,[33] denote a genus which resides by intimate relation in different substances; and when this genus is apprehended, through its connection with it we apprehend the particular substance in which it resides. Words like "white," &c., denote a genus which similarly resides in qualities; through the connection with genus we apprehend the quality, and through the connection with the quality we apprehend the individual substance. So in the case of words expressing particular names, in consequence of the recognition that "this is the same person from his first coming into existence to his final destruction, in spite of the difference produced by the various states of childhood, youth, adolescence, &c.," we must accept a fixed genus as Devadatta-hood,[34] &c. [as directly denoted by them]. So, too, in words expressing "action" a genus is denoted; this is the root-meaning, as in paṭhati, "he reads," &c., since we find here a meaning common to all who read.

In the doctrine of Vyāḍi, who maintained that words meant individual things [and not classes or genera], the individual thing is put forward as that which is primarily denoted, while the genus is implied [as a characteristic mark]; and he thus avoids the alleged faults of "indefiniteness," and "wandering away from its proper subject."[35]

Both views are allowed by the great teacher Pāṇini; since in i. 2, 58, he accepts the theory that a word means the genus, where he says that "when the singular is used to express the class the plural may be optionally used" [as in the sentence, "A Brāhman is to be honoured," which may equally run, "Brāhmans are to be honoured"]; while in i. 2, 64, he accepts the theory that a word means the individual thing, where he says, "In any individual case there is but one retained of things similar in form" [i.e., the dual means Rāma and Rāma, and the plural means Rāma, and Rāma and Rāma; but we retain only one, adding a dual or plural affix]. Grammar, in fact, being adapted to all assemblies, can accept both theories without being compromised. Therefore both theories are in a sense true;[36] but the real fact is that all words ultimately mean the Supreme Brahman.

As it has been said—