and it is the latter which renders the whole
altogether different from the parts of which it is composed; and
it is not necessary that all the parts should be perceived before the
whole is perceived. Kumarila holds that it is due to the point of
view from which we look at a thing that we call it a separate
whole or only a conglomeration of parts. In reality they are identical,
but when we lay stress on the notion of parts, the thing
appears to be a conglomeration of them, and when we look at it
from the point of view of the unity appearing as a whole, the thing
appears to be a whole of which there are parts (see _S'lokavarttika,
Vanavada_) [Footnote ref 1].

Jati, though incorporating the idea of having many units within one, is
different from the conception of whole in this, that it resides in its
entirety in each individual constituting that jati (_vyas'ajyav@rtti_),

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: According to Sa@mkhya-Yoga a thing is regarded as the unity
of the universal and the particular (_samanyavis'esasamudayo dravyam,
Vyasabhasya_, III. 44), for there is no other separate entity which is
different from them both in which they would inhere as Nyaya holds.
Conglomerations can be of two kinds, namely those in which the parts
exist at a distance from one another (e.g. a forest), and those in which
they exist close together (_mrantara hi tadavayavah_), and it is this
latter combination (_ayutasiddhavayava_) which is called a dravya, but
here also there is no separate whole distinct from the parts; it is the
parts connected in a particular way and having no perceptible space
between them that is called a thing or a whole. The Buddhists as
Panditas'oka has shown did not believe in any whole (_avayavi_), it
is the atoms which in connection with one another appeared as a whole
occupying space (_paramanava eva hi pararupades'apariharenotpannah
parasparasahita avabhasamana desavitanavanto bhavanti_). The whole
is thus a mere appearance and not a reality (see _Avayavinirakarana, Six
Buddhist Nyaya Tracts_). Nyaya however held that the atoms were partless
_(niravayava}_ and hence it would be wrong to say that when we see an
object we see the atoms. The existence of a whole as different from the
parts which belong to it is directly experienced and there is no valid
reason against it:

"_adustakaranodbhutamanavirbhutabadhakam
asandigdanca vijnanam katham mithyeti k