________________
EXISTENCE OF GOD
139
Jayanta changes his above probans into a new one, viz. 'exhibiting an arrangement of parts.'25 While presenting his case the atheist too had attacked this prohans in details, and so Jayanta undertakes an elaborate defence of it. Thus the atheist submits : "If a thing exhibits an arrangment-of-parts of the type found in a jar etc. then it is proper to infer a voluntary producer for this thing. But what is found in the earth etc. is an arrangement-of-parts just in name.”26 Jayanta retorts : "On this logic one cannot infer in a mountain fire from the observed smoke which, unlike that earlier observed in the kitchen, is so huge in the mountain. As a matter of fact, there obtains an invariable concomitance between the general features 'exhibiting an arrangement of parts and being caused by a voluntary producer just as it obtains between smoke in general and fire in general.-7 As for the commonness of name, that is found only when the things named are similar in some definite respect."28 Then the atheist has pointed out that self-grown grass etc. are actually observed to be caused without requiring a voluntary producer; Jayanta retorts : “But these grass etc. are a part and parcel of the paksa'in our inference. And no inference will remain valid if the absence of probandum in the paksa itself be a proper ground for invalidating the inference concerned."29 The atheist pleads : "Leave aside the case of earth etc. which were produced we do not know when. But grass etc. are born before our very eyes without requiring the services of a voluntary producer”; Jayanta retorts : “In the case of grass etc. a voluntary producer is not unavailable but he is invisible by nature. And a thing invisible by nature cannot be proved to be nonexistent on the ground that it is not seen."30 The atheist pleads : “But why posit an invisible cause when the visible ones like soil, water etc. are adequate for the purpose ?”, Jayanta retorts : “All those who believe in rebirth must posit an invisible cause in the form of past acts. And alt must believe in rebirth.”31 The atheist pleads : “Past acts have to be posited because otherwise the diversity of worldphenomena remains unaccounted for”; Jayanta retorts : "Similarly, a voluntary producer has to be posited because otherwise all causation remains unaccounted for."32 Then the atheist objects : “Your plea that the paksa must be left out of purview when the validity of a probans is being tested is not proper; for under its cover all invalid probans can be made to appear valid”33; Jayanta retorts : “You fear that on accepting our plea any vipaksa can be made a part and parcel of the
