"Action" is fivefold, according to the distinction of throwing upwards, throwing downwards, contracting, expanding, and going: revolution, evacuating, &c., being included under "going." The genus of throwing upwards, &c., will be their respective definitions. The genus of throwing upwards is a subordinate genus to action; it exists with intimate relation, and is to be known as the mediate cause of conjunction with a higher place. In the same manner are to be made the definitions of throwing downwards, &c. Generality (or genus) is twofold, extensive and non-extensive; existence is extensive as found with intimate connection in substance and quality, or in quality and action; substance, &c., are non-extensive. The definition of generality has been given before. Particularity and intimate relation cannot be divided,--in the former case in consequence of the infinite number of separate particularities, in the latter from intimate relation being but one; their definitions have been given before. There is a popular proverb-- "Duality, change produced by baking, and disjunction produced by disjunction,--he whose mind vacillates not in these three is the true Vaiśeshika;" and therefore we will now show the manner of the production of duality, &c. There is here first the contact of the organ of sense with the object; thence there arises the knowledge of the genus unity; then the distinguishing perception _apekshábuddhi_ [by which we apprehend "this is one," "this is one," &c.]; then the production of duality, _dvitva_ (in the object);[175] then the knowledge of the abstract genus of duality (_dvitvatva_); then the knowledge of the quality duality as it exists in the two things; then imagination[176] (_saṃskára_).[177] But it may here be asked what is the proof of duality, &c., being thus produced from _apekshábuddhi_? The great doctor (Udayana) maintained that _apekshábuddhi_ must be the producer of duality, &c., because duality is never found separated from it, while, at the same time, we cannot hold _apekshábuddhi_ as the cause only of its being known [and therefore it follows that it must be the cause of its being produced[178]], just as contact is with regard to sound. We, however, maintain the same opinion by a different argument; duality, &c., cannot be held to be made known (_jñápya_) by that non-eternal apprehension whose object is two or more individual unities (_i.e._, _apekshábuddhi_), because these are qualities which reside in a plurality of subjects [and not in any one individual[179]] just as "severalty" does [and, therefore, as _apekshábuddhi_ is not their _jñápaka_, it must be their _janaka_].