________________
214
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Buddhist would argue, there is no need for a relation since such absolutely independent existents need no relating entity for the simple reason that they are, by hypothesis, severally self-sufficient entities and, therefore, admit of no dependence whatsoever (pāratantryābhāvāt)'. Such an imposition of dependence on two independent entities would, in Buddhist view, result in introducing contradiction in an otherwise relationless situation. If, on the other hand, the dependence is argued to be between two entities which are yet to come into being (anispannayoh), then it would be absurd to talk about relating two entities which are yet to be.
The second hypothesis of the interpenetration or interfusion of the relata fares, according to Dharmakirti, no better, since here also, as in the other case, the argument is beset with a contradiction : the interfusing relata should, on this
1. pāratantryavihinatvāt siddhasyetyapare viduh / TSV, p. 146, kā. 10.
Vidyānanda uses 'siddha' and 'asiddha' also for "nişpanna'
and 'anişpanna' respectively. 2. prathamapakşe kim asau nişpannayoḥ sambandhinoḥ syâd
anişpannayor vā? na tävad anişpannayoḥ, svarūpasyaivāsattvät Śaśāśvavişāņavat nişpannayoś ca pāratantryābhāvād asambandha eva/
Having thus stated the Buddhist argument Prabhācandra corroborates with the following kā, from Dharmakīrti :
pāratantryam hi sambandhaḥ siddhe kā paratantrata /
tasmāt sarvasya bhāvasya sambandho nāsti tattvataḥ // PKM, spd., p. 504, kā. 1. Also see SKR, p. 812.
Vidyānanda refers to another possible view which is not so much a third as the combined view of the two stated above. This combined view is also repudiated by the Buddhist as being liable to the defects of both the views together (pakşadvayabhāvidoşānuşangāt). Vide PVD, and MV thereon, III. 236, and TSV, p. 146.
