Mimamsasutra 118.2.3

118.2.3

naitad evam. ubhayor ucyamānayor guṇapradhānabhāvaḥ syāt. yadi cātrākṛtiḥ pratīyate śabdena, tadā vyaktir api padārtha iti na śakyate vaditum. kutaḥ. ākṛtir hi vyaktyā nityasaṃbaddhā, saṃbandhinyāṃ ca tasyām avagatāyāṃ saṃbandhyantaram avagamyate. tad etad ātmapratyakṣam, yac chabda uccarite vyaktiḥ pratīyata iti. kiṃ śabdād utākṛter iti vibhāgo na pratyakṣaḥ. so 'nvayavyatirekābhyām avagamyate. antareṇāpi śabdam, ya ākṛtim avabudhyeta, avabudhyetevāsau vyaktim. yas tūccarite 'pi śabde mānasād apacārāt kadācid ākṛtiṃ nopalabheta, na jātucid asāv imāṃ vyaktim avagaccheta. nanu vyaktiviśiṣṭāyām ākṛtau vartate. [83] vyaktiviśiṣṭāyāṃ ced varteta, vyaktyantaraviśiṣṭā na pratīyeta. tasmāc chabda ākṛtipratyayasya nimittam. ākṛtipratyayo vyaktipratyayasyeti. nanu guṇabhūtā pratīyata ity uktam. na guṇabhāvo 'smatpakṣasya bādhakaḥ. sarvathā tāvat pratīyate. arthād guṇabhāvaḥ pradhānabhāvo vā. svārthaṃ ced uccāryate, pradhānabhūtā. atha na svārtham, parārtham eva, tato guṇabhūtā. na tatra śabdavyāpāro 'sti. nanu ca daṇḍīti, na tāvad daṇḍiśabdena daṇḍo 'bhidhīyate, atha ca daṇḍaviśiṣṭo 'vagamyate. evam ihāpi na tāvad ākṛtir abhidhīyate, atha cākṛtiviśiṣṭā vyaktir gamyeteti. naitat sādhu ucyate. satyaṃ daṇḍiśabdena daṇḍo nābhidhīyate. na tv apratīte daṇḍe daṇḍipratyayo 'sti. asti tu daṇḍiśabdaikadeśabhūto daṇḍaśabdaḥ, yena daṇḍaḥ pratyāyitaḥ. tasmāt sādhv etad, yat - pratīte viśeṣaṇe viśiṣṭaḥ pratīyata iti.

[Reply:] This is not so. If both were expressed, there would be a relation of principal and subordinate. And if here the universal form is cognised from the word, then it cannot be said that the individual is also the word-meaning. Why? For the universal form is eternally connected with the individual; and when that connected entity is known, the other connected entity is known. That the individual is cognised when the word is uttered is an immediate internal perception (ātmapratyakṣa). But the distinction—whether it is from the word or from the universal form—is not directly perceptible; it is understood through positive and negative concomitance (anvaya-vyatireka). Even without a word, whoever apprehends the universal form would apprehend, as it were, the individual. But he who, even when the word is uttered, does not perceive the universal form due to a mental lapse, would never cognise this individual. [Objection:] Surely it applies to the universal form as qualified by the individual. [Reply:] If it applied to [the universal form] as qualified by an individual, it would not be cognised as qualified by another individual. Therefore, the word is the cause of the cognition of the universal form, and the cognition of the universal form is the cause of the cognition of the individual. [Objection:] But it was said that [the universal form] is cognised as subordinate! [Reply:] Its being subordinate does not subvert our position; in any case, it is cognised. Subordinateness or principal status arises from the context/purpose: if it is uttered for its own sake, it is principal; but if not for its own sake, but only for the sake of another, then it is subordinate. There is no operation of the word in that regard. [Objection:] Surely in the case of 'the staff-bearer' (daṇḍī), the staff itself is not denoted by the word 'staff-bearer', and yet the person qualified by the staff is understood. In the same way here too, the universal form is not denoted, and yet the individual qualified by the universal form is understood! [Reply:] This is not well said. It is true that the staff is not denoted by the word 'staff-bearer'; yet there is no cognition of the staff-bearer when the staff has not been cognised. But there is the word 'staff' (daṇḍa) forming a part of the compound word 'staff-bearer' (daṇḍin), by which the staff is made known. Therefore, it is correct that when the qualifying attribute is cognised, the qualified entity is cognised.