Verse 3.1.11

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.1.11:

अर्थजात्यभिधानेऽपि सर्वे जात्यभिधायिनः ।
व्यापारलक्षणा यस्मात्पदार्थाः समवस्थिताः ॥ ११ ॥

arthajātyabhidhāne'pi sarve jātyabhidhāyinaḥ |
vyāpāralakṣaṇā yasmātpadārthāḥ samavasthitāḥ || 11 ||

11. (Some) words may denote the universals of objects, but all denote the universal, since the meanings of words are determined by the functions (vyāpāra) of words (i.e., they are determined by what the words actually convey).

Commentary

The author now tries to show that all words denote the universal without resorting to the concept of ‘adhyāsa’.

[Read verse 11 above]

[So far, the author has established the doctrine that all words denote the universal with the help of the grammarian’s idea of adhyāsa, the idea that the universal of the meaning appears as one with that of the word, or rather that the universal of the word is superimposed upon that of the meaning. Even without recourse to the idea of adhyāsa, it is possible to show that all words denote the universal. If one does not accept adhyāsa, the alternative is to say that words denote the universals of the object, pure and simple. Even then one will have to maintain that all words do so. By ‘all’, hat is meant is: not only words like gauḥ, aśvaḥ, etc., but also words like jāti. Here one has to meet the Vaiśeṣika objection that if the word jāti also stands for a universal, it must be a universal existing in other universals. And that is not possible. If there is universal in universals, where would one stop? But grammarians have a different point of view. Their chief concern is to find out the nature of meanings conveyed by words. What they find is that in all universals as conveyed by words, there is a common point or characteristic which can be looked upon as another universal and can be called by the name jāti. The existence of the first universal was postulated because a common characteristic was experienced in the individuals. Even invisible things are assumed to exist if they somehow produce a cognition in regard to themselves. What to say of things conveyed by words? Grammarians go by what the words convey. They are not really concerned with things as they really are, but with things as conveyed by words. If a quality is conveyed by words as a common characteristic, it becomes a universal for them. The word śyāma is considered to be expressive of a quality but Pāṇini gives to its meaning the name of sāmānya in the compound word śastrīśyāmā according to his sūtra: upamānāni sāmānyavacanaiḥ. (P. 2.1.55). The same is the case with action. In such matters, grammarians are more anxious to follow worldly usage than the views and conventions of other systems of thought. To them, artha means what words convey and all words convey the universal, because that is a matter of fact. In reality, the universal which a word conveys may or may not exist. But the word in question, through its function called abhidhā, does convey it. So that is the meaning of the word.]

The author now makes clear the function called abhidhā of words.