Mimamsasutra 118.2.2

118.2.2

yadi vyaktyantareṣv api bhavati, sarvasāmānyaviśeṣaviyuktāyām aśvavyaktau gośabdaḥ kim iti na vartate. āha - yeṣv eva prayogo dṛṣṭaḥ, teṣu vartiṣyate, na sarvatra. na cāśvavyaktau gośabdasya prayogo dṛṣṭaḥ. tasmāt tatra na vartiṣyate. yadi yatra [82] prayogo dṛṣṭaḥ, tatra vṛttiḥ, adyajātāyāṃ gavi prathamaprayogo na prāpnoti tatrādṛṣṭatvāt. sāmānyapratyayaś ca na prāpnoti, iyam api gaur iti, iyam api gaur iti; iyaṃ vā gaur iti, iyaṃ vā gaur iti syāt. bhavati tu sāmānyapratyayo 'dṛṣṭapūrvāyām api govyaktau. tasmān na prayogāpekṣo gośabdo vyaktivacana iti śakyata āśrayitum. evaṃ tarhi śakteḥ svabhāva eṣaḥ, yat kasyāṃcit vyaktau vartate, kasyāṃcin na. yathā - agnir uṣṇaḥ, udakaṃ śītam, evam etad bhaviṣyatīti. naivaṃ sidhyati. na hy etad gamyate kasyāṃcid vyaktau vartate, kasyāṃcin neti. satyam etat, gotvaṃ lakṣaṇaṃ bhaviṣyatīti. yatra gotvaṃ tasyāṃ vyaktāv iti. evaṃ tarhi viśiṣṭā vyaktiḥ pratīyeta. yadi ca viśiṣṭā, pūrvataraṃ viśeṣaṇam avagamyeta. na hy apratīte viśeṣaṇe viśiṣṭaṃ kecana pratyetum arhantīti. astu, viśeṣaṇatvenākṛtiṃ vakṣyati, viśeṣyatvena vyaktim. na hy ākṛtipadārthakasya vyaktir na padārthaḥ, vyaktipadārthakasya vā nākṛtiḥ. ubhayam ubhayasya padārthaḥ. kasyacit kiṃcit prādhānyena vivakṣitaṃ bhavati, tenātrākṛtir guṇabhāvena, vyaktiḥ pradhānabhāvena vivakṣyata iti.

If it applies to other individuals as well, why does the word 'cow' not apply to an individual horse, which is also devoid of all [bovine] universals and particulars? He replies: It will apply only to those in which usage has been observed, not everywhere; and the usage of the word 'cow' has not been observed with respect to an individual horse; therefore it will not apply there. [Reply:] If application occurs where usage has been observed, then its initial usage with respect to a newly born cow would not occur, because it has not been observed there. Moreover, a common cognition (sāmānyapratyaya) would not arise—namely, 'This too is a cow,' 'This too is a cow'; rather, it would be: 'Either this is a cow, or this is a cow.' But in fact, a common cognition does arise, even with respect to an individual cow not seen before. Therefore, one cannot maintain that the word 'cow' denotes an individual dependent upon [prior] usage. [Opponent:] Then such is the inherent nature of its expressive power, that it applies to some individuals and not to others, just as fire is hot and water is cold—so it will be here. [Reply:] It cannot be established in this way. For it cannot be known [from mere power] that it applies to a certain individual and not to another. [Opponent:] That is true; cowness will be the defining characteristic: [the word applies] to that individual in which cowness is present. [Reply:] Then in that case, a qualified individual would be cognised. And if it is qualified, the qualifying attribute would be cognised beforehand; for when the qualifying attribute is not cognised, no one can cognise the qualified entity. [Opponent:] Let it be so: it will express the universal form as the qualifying attribute and the individual as the qualified entity. For an individual is not absent as word-meaning for one who holds the universal form to be the word-meaning, nor is the universal form absent as word-meaning for one who holds the individual to be the word-meaning. Both are the word-meaning for both. For someone, something is intended to be expressed as principal; therefore, here the universal form is intended as subordinate, and the individual as principal.