________________
138
INDIAN LOGIC
belong.is God cannot undertake creation out of playfulness either, for that would mean that before creation He lacks something; moreover, it is not proper for Him to indulge in a
play that involves so much misery.16 (iv) God cannot also destroy the entire world all at once, for that
cannot happen so long as past acts of the beings are there to play their role; and if He can really create and destroy the entire world at His mere wish, why posit past acts ?!? Nor can the concept of past acts be actually discarded, for that will entail three undesirable contingencies : (1) God will be proved devoid of compassion, for He will be creating a miserable world; (2) Vedic injunctions and prohibitions will prove redundant, for all happiness and misery will be due to God's wish; (3) there will be likelihood of the state of moksa coming to an end, 'for God
will be in a position to bring that about.18
While proceeding to assail the atheist's case Jayanta himself concedes that no perception or a perception-based inference can establish the existence of God. But he criticises at length the two objections raised by the atheist against analogy-based inference.20 Thus he first formulates an inference as follows : "The earth etc. are caused by a voluntary producer who knows how to produce them, when to produce them, and the like, because they are of the nature of an effect, just like a jar etc."21 Here with a view to convincing them that the earth etc. are really of the nature of an effect three rivals are addressed in three ways. Thus the Carvāka is told : "Even Vedas which are so much unlike other texts are considered by you to be of the nature of an effect. How can then you deny that the earth etc. are of the nature of an effect ?"22 [Jayanta's point is obscure. The Mimāmsaka has certainly argued that Vedas are eternal because they are so much unlike other texts, but that cannot be Jayanta's argument.) Then the Mīmāṁsaka is told : "You admit that on observing a thing to be destroyed it is proper to infer that it was once produced. But then during heavy rains a mountain on its sides is observed to be denuded of a rock or two. This proves that things like a mountain were once produced."23 Lastly, the Buddhist is told : "Even in joke you would not say about a thing that it is eternal. How can then you deny that the earth etc. are of the nature of an effect ?"24 But then with a view to offering a probans whose presence in the paksa is beyond doubt
