________________
458
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XV.
manifesteil, there would be restriction regarding the relation of Container and Contained.
" In it'-1.8. in the restriction of the relation of Container and Contained." -(844-845)
The answer to the above argunents (of Prashastamata) is given in the following
TEXTS (846-847)
IF INHERENCE IS ONE ONLY, THEN ANY RESTRICTION REGARDING THE
Container and Contained IS IMPOSSIBLE. THE UNIVERSAL SUBSTANCE' IS HELD TO SUBSIST IN SUBSTANCE ONLY -HOW COULD THAT BE DUE TO INHERENCE? THIS SAME INHERENCE OF THE SUBSTANCE IS PRESENT IN QUALITY, ETO, ALSO; AS THESE LATTKE ARE RELATED TO THE UNIVERSALS QUALITY', ETC.;--AND INHERENCE IS THE SAME
IN BOTH.-(846-847)
COMMENTARY.
According to us, there is no such relation of Container and Contained as is held to subsist between the Universal Colour' and the particular Colour; it is admitted by you only; and this is impossible for you who regard Inherence to be one only. These and other incongruities in the Opponent's standpoint are now pointed out.
For instance, the Opponent accepts the restriction that the Universal Substance' subsists in Substances alone; and he does so on the basis of Inherence':-now the Inherence of the Universal as 'Substance is present in Qualities also ; because those are related to the Universal Quality',
Question: "Even though the Relation is there, how is it concluded that that Relation is that of Inherence ?"
Answer :- Inherence is the same in both - Both i.e. the two Universals 'Substance and Quality' Thus the notions having the same bu is in both cases, admixture and confusion are inevitable.—(846-847)
TEXT (848).
IT IT WERE NOT SO, THEN THIS (INHERENCE) WOULD BE DIFFERENT LY THE VARIOUS UNIVERSALS LIKE 'QUALITY ', ETO.,JUST AS CONJUNCTION VARIES WITH EACH CONJUNCT FACTOR,
-(848)
COMMENTARY. If it were not 80':- i.e. if the Inherence of the Universal Quality' in particular Qualities were not the same as the Inherence of the Universal