________________
CHAPTER VII
221
tuent elements of the situation, viz., the relation itself (sambandha) and its relata (sambandhinau). Is the relation, it is questioned, identical with (abhinnah; anarthāntaram) the relata, or different from (bhinnah; arthāntaram) them ? If it is argued to be identical with them, then comes the Buddhist retort that there will either be the relata only (sambandhināveva, na sambandhaḥ-) or the relation only (sa eva vā na tāviti'), not the two together. If, on the contrary, the other position is advanced, viz., that the relation is different from the relata, then it would be asked, how could the relata which are absolutely (kevalau) independent of the relation be related by it at all ?: No two things, which lack some kind of mutual affinity can be related.
Further, granting the opponent's supposition that a relation is a distinctive entity alongside the relata (sambandho'rthāntaram) the Buddhist objects how the two relata could be related by one relation' at all ? Positing another relation in order to relate each relatum to the relation in question, would raise the difficulty of endlessly positing an increasing multiplicity of such relations landing the Naiyāyika in an in
1. PKM, p. 505. Vidyānanda comments: Yady anarthāntaram tadā
sambandhināveva prasajyete / tathā ca na sambandho nāma / TSV,
p. 148; also see SRK, p. 813. 2. PKM, p. 505. 3. sa (sambandhaḥ) tato’rthāntaram cet sambandhinau kevalau
katham sambaddhau syātām / TSV, p. 148. See also SRK, p. 813. For a reference to sankara's view in this matter, vide p. 222,
f.n. 1. 4. tenaikena sambandhena saha dvayoh sambandhinoh kaḥ
sambandhah ? PKM, p. 505.
