Indian Philosophy v2.c25.s2.22

v2.c25.s2.22

Both Prabhākara and Kumārila accept the reality of universals and regard them as objects of perception. The Buddhist, on the other hand, holds that specific individuality alone is real and universality is a product of imagination.¹ The Buddhist view is criticised by Kumārila and Pārthasārathi. The universal is an object of perception, since whenever we perceive an object, we perceive it as belonging to a particular class. The act of perception involves both assimilation and discrimination. Perception is inclusive (anuvṛtta) as well as exclusive (vyāvṛtta). Inclusion depends on the reality of the universal. The act of inference is also based on it. Nor can the Buddhist contend that the universal is not real, since it is not perceived as different from the individual. For the argument that what is, must be either different or non-different,² assumes the universal being (vastutva). Nor is it correct to ask whether generality is present in its entirety in each individual or collectively in all, since such a distinction is relevant to individuals, and not to generality, which is partless. The Jaina view of the universal is also rejected.³ If universality is one with similarity, we must say “this is like a cow,” and not “this is a cow.” Besides, similarity is not possible apart from universality. Things are similar, if they possess properties in common. The universal, according to Kumārila, is not different from the individual.⁴ The relation between the two is one of identity in difference. Whether we cognise the universal or the individual depends on our interest. The universal, called also ākṛti (form) does not mean shape, but identity of character, for, ākṛti is said to belong to immaterial objects like the self. The shape of objects is destructible, but not so the class nature.⁵ “The class itself is called ākṛti, which signifies that by which the individual is characterised. It is that which is common to all the individual objects and the means of a collective idea of all these as forming one composite whole.”⁶ Pārthasārathi argues that the universal is not absolutely different from the individual. Were it so, we would not be able to perceive the universal in the individual. In the perception “this is a cow,” we have a cognition of this (iyambuddhi) as well as that of the cow (gobuddhi). The former has an individual for its object and the latter the universal. The cognitions of “this” and “cow” are different, and yet they inhere in the same object. This twofold character of perception points to the nature of the object as both universal and individual. The two are not naturally inconsistent, since both identity and difference are perceived in a single act of perception. The identity and the difference do not contradict each other, as the cognitions "this is silver" and "this is not silver" do.¹ The identity and the difference relate to different aspects of the object.