Buddhist Logic v2.c19.s2.2

v2.c19.s2.2

(5. 5). (The Buddhist) objects and maintains that the cooperation¹ (of the different sources of our knowledge in the cognition of one and the same object) is impossible, since each of them has its own special field of action. This we (Naiyāyiks) deny, because we do not admit that (each has its own special object). There is indeed such a theory. Every source of our knowledge is supposed to have a special object. Sensation² apprehends particulars (only), inference³ apprehends universals (exclusively). That alone is an object of our knowledge which is either a universal or a particular. Sensation is not intent upon a universal, and never is inference⁴ intent upon a particular.⁵ (5. 9). This we, (Naiyāyiks), deny, because we do not agree (with the reason). We neither admit that there are only two sources of knowledge, (sensation and conception⁶), nor that there are only two (quite distinct) objects of knowledge, (the particular⁷ and the universal), nor do we maintain that they cannot coalesce. Why? The sources are four in number, (perception, inference, analogy and testimony). The objects are of three kinds, the universal, the particular and the individual thing as possessor¹ of Universals, (concrete universals).