Nyayasutra 379

379.2

athāpi ---

379.3

lakṣaṇavyavasthānād evāpratiṣedhaḥ ||

[NyS 4.1.36:] [There is] no refutation, precisely because of the fixed order of characterizations.

379.4

na kaścid eko bhāva ity ayuktaḥ pratiṣedhaḥ/ kasmāt? lakṣaṇavyavasthānād eva/ yad iha lakṣaṇaṃ bhāvasya saṃjñāśabdabhūtaṃ tad ekasmin vyavasthitam, yaṃ kumbham adrākṣaṃ taṃ spṛśāmi yam evāsprākṣaṃ taṃ paśyāmīti nāṇusamūho gṛhyate iti/ aṇusamūhe cāgṛhyamāṇe yad gṛhyate tad ekam eveti/
athāpy etad anūktam nāsty eko bhāvo yasmāt samudāyaḥ, ekānupapatter nāsty eva samūhaḥ --- nāsty eko bhāvo yasmāt samūhe bhāvaśabdaprayogaḥ;ekasya cānupapatteḥ

The denial that 'there is no single entity' is untenable. Why? Precisely because of the fixed order of characterizations. The characterization of an entity here that consists of a designating word is fixed upon one thing: 'The pot that I saw, that I touch; the very one that I touched, that I see'—an aggregate of atoms is not grasped. And when an aggregate of atoms is not grasped, what is grasped is only a single thing.
Furthermore, this which has been repeated [is flawed]: 'There is no single entity, because there is an aggregate; because a single thing is untenable, an aggregate does not exist at all'—[that is,] there is no single entity because the word for entity is used with respect to an aggregate; and because a single thing is untenable,

379.5

samūho nopapadyate ekasamuccayo hi samūha iti/ vyāhatatvād anupapannaṃ --- nāsty eko bhāva iti yasya pratiṣedhaḥ pratijñāyate, samūhe bhāvaśabdaprayogād iti hetuṃ bruvatā sa evābhyanujñāyate, ekasamuccayo hi samūha iti/ samūhe bhāvaśabdaprayogād iti ca samūham āśritya pratyekaṃ samūhipratiṣedho nāsty eko bhāva iti/ so 'yam ubhayato vyāghātād yatkiñcanavāda iti//36//

an aggregate is not tenable, for an aggregate is indeed a collection of single things. Because of contradiction, it is untenable: by stating the logical reason 'because the word for entity is used with respect to an aggregate', one concedes the very thing whose denial is asserted in 'there is no single entity', for an aggregate is indeed a collection of single things. And by 'because the word for entity is used with respect to an aggregate', relying on the aggregate, one denies each member of the aggregate [saying] 'there is no single entity'. This is an idle statement because of contradiction on both counts. ||36