  One may wonder why it is that, since a pervasion relation is of the form “all Hs are S”, the Naiyāyikas did not simply use the notion of universal quantification in their definitions. The answer, perhaps, is that they were in fact trying to define this notion, and to do so only in terms of certain other notions which they took to be primitive, especially the notion of co-location and absence.  If this is correct, however, then we must show how to reconstruct the definition without its implicit quantification over a property P (cf.  Goekoop 1967).