The Mimamsa school of Indian philosophy holds that universals and particulars are inseparable and that universals are not independent entities but rather exist only in relation to particulars.

The Nyaya school posits that universals are inherent in particulars and that particulars are instances of universals.

In Vaisheshika philosophy, jati refers to the universal that is present in all particulars of a given category.

The Madhyamaka school of Buddhism asserts that universals are merely conceptual constructs and do not possess an independent existence.

Advaita Vedanta posits that Brahman, the ultimate reality, is both identical to and distinct from the world of particulars.

Extreme Realism maintains that universals are real entities that exist independently of particulars.

The theory of apoha, propounded by the Mimamsa school, posits that universals are linguistic entities that are used to negate the differences between particulars.

In Nyaya-Vaisheshika philosophy, guna refers to the universal that is present in only some particulars of a given category.

The Sautrantika school of Buddhism posits that universals are real entities that exist independently of particulars.

In Advaita Vedanta, maya refers to the illusory appearance of the world of particulars.

Conceptualism maintains that universals are mental constructs that exist in the mind.

The theory of anvayavyatireka posits that inference is the method for determining the relationship between universals and particulars.

In Nyaya-Vaisheshika philosophy, dravya refers to the universal that is present in all particulars.

The Yogacara school of Buddhism posits that universals are neither real entities nor mere conceptual constructs, but rather have a provisional and conventional existence.

In Advaita Vedanta, brahman refers to the ultimate reality that transcends the world of particulars.