________________
CHAPTER III
105
another cannot bear the relationship of cause and effect. If all existence is of a fleeting nature, and everything, mere currents of incessant change, how can the relationship of cause and effet exist between unconnected and different substances?
अन्येष्वनन्यशब्दोऽयं संवृतिर्न मृषा कथम्। मुख्यार्थः संवृतिर्नास्ति विना मुख्यान्न संवृतिः ॥44 ॥ anyeșvananyaśabdo'yam samvịtirna mộşā katham, mukhyārthah samvștirnāsti vină mukhyānna
samvștiḥ.
44. This word without difference is applied to others .in fiction. (If so) why this fictitious application is not false? The real object cannot be fictitious and without a real object there cannot be any application by analogy.
COMMENTARY This is another argument to refute the Buddhists who hold the view of Ksaņikavāda. It is urged by the Buddhists that there is no being. Everything is always becoming. To refute this view it is mentioned by the Jainas that becoming is not possible for what is not being. “Cause nd effect are in reality two phases of one and the ame thing. The two are relative terms with their solidarity So vital that the negation of the one is the negation of the other. But Kşanikavāda makes the relation fictitious and consequently there is neither cause nor effect in any case. Causation is thus reduced to a mere 'sequence in time'. But even this idea of mere time relation is untenable in Buddhism. If there is no cause, if there is nothing in the cause that is necessarily productive of the effect and if there is no essential relation between the two, all certainty in the natural order vanishes and there remains no uniformity even for bare timesuccession."} 1. Introduction to Jainism, pages 114-115.
