Verse 3.1.2

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.1.2:

पदार्थानामपोद्धारे जातिर्वा द्रव्यमेव वा ।
पदार्थौ सर्वशब्दानां नित्यावेवोपवर्णितौ ॥ २ ॥

padārthānāmapoddhāre jātirvā dravyameva vā |
padārthau sarvaśabdānāṃ nityāvevopavarṇitau || 2 ||

2. When the meaning of a sentence is analysed into those of individual words, two word-meanings have been declared to be the eternal meaning of all words, either the universal (jāti) or the particular (dravya).

Commentary

The nature of the abstructed [abstracted?] meanings is now explained.

[Read verse 2 above]

[Once the meanings of words are abstracted from that of the sentence, the next question is: what is the nature of these meanings? According to some, the universal (jāti) is the meaning of all words. According to others, it is the particular (dravya) which is the meaning of all words. A third view is that it is the particular as qualified by the universal. This third view is indicated by the dual number in the word padārthau. If the third view is the correct one, then a word would convey both the universal and the particular at the same time, because it is inconceivable that a word should convey one thing first and another thing after a little interval. When both are conveyed, one would be more important than the other in a particular context. The dual number in padārthau might be taken to mean that the universal and the particular are equally important, but, in particular contexts, only one of them is conveyed. A word like gauḥ conveys the universal ‘cow-ness’, but, as a universal without a substratum is impossible, the particular is also necessarily understood. Similarly, the verb denotes the universal aspect of action, present in the different moments of action and causing the same cognition and the use of the same word. The universal of the accessory (kāraka) conveyed by a verb plays a subordinate part in the cognition produced by a verb. The universal of action, conveyed by the verb, enters into relation with the universal of the accessory conveyed by the noun through the particular (vyakti). In the particular inheres the universal which enters into relation with action through the power called accessory which also inheres in the particular. It will be explained in the section on the Accessory (Sādhanasamuddeśa) that what is called ‘accessory’ is really a power or a capacity. The universal of an action like cooking is manifested by the different moments of it like putting the pot on the fire. Even though the universal of action is eternal, it becomes a process (sādhya) through the particular. According to this view, prepositions (upasarga) also express the universal, because they do no more than denote a peculiarity in the meaning of the verb which is a universal. A postposition is also based on the universal of a relation. Similarly, words like śukla express the universals of qualities (guṇa). So do proper names like Dittha. This is the view of Vājapyāyana. (See M. Bhā I. p. 242, 1. 10).

According to Vyāḍi, the particular (dravya) is the meaning of all words, because it is the particular which is connected with action. What Vyādi calls dravya is often called Vyakti, the individual, also the correlative of universal. Thus, according to Vyāḍi, the particular or the individual becomes an integral part of the meaning of a sentence.

It is to this that Vedic injunctions refer as declared in the Vārttika.

codanāsu ca tasyārambhāt (Vā 47 on P. 1.2.64).

Even though the universal is not directly expressed by the word, it is also understood. In the verb also, it is the particular which is predominant, according to Vyāḍi. The meaning of a verb is the particular penetrated by action (vyāpārāviṣṭaṃ dravyam). Words like śukla also denote the particular.

Alternatively, one might understand by dravya what is going to be explained in the next section: that it is Brahman, conditioned by this or that limiting factor and that is the meaning of every word.

Ordinarily, the word dravya is a synonym of vyakti, the individual. As the two word-meanings in question are declared to be those of all words (sarvaśabdānām) they are also attributed to the parts like base and suffix which are abstracted from the individual word. The truth is that both are recognised meanings of words, even though one or the other may be emphasised in particular contexts. Whether the meaning of a word is jāti or dravya, in either case, it is something which is eternal (nitya).

By nitya, it is continuity (pravāhanityatā) which is meant, as is made clear in the statement—

tadapi nityaṃ yasminstattvaṃ na vihanyate (M. Bhā I, p. 7, 1. 22).

Thus, it has been shown that the universal and/or the particular can be the meaning of a word. In this section, the considerations which favour the view that it is the universal will be explained.]

Now a doubt arises: If the universal is the meaning of every word, how can it enter into relation with action which is the meaning of the verb in the sentence? It is only the accessory (sādhana) which can be connected with action and the universal can never be the accessory. No doubt, its substratum can be the accessory; but, after all, it is the universal which is directly conveyed by the word. So, when something having the universal prescribed in a Vedic injunction is not available, we cannot use a substitute, because it would not have the prescribed universal. Thus Vedic injunctions cannot be carried out.

This difficulty is removed as follows—[Read next verse]