________________
172
INDIAN LOGIC
must be eternal because it is an impartite entity like sky (and unlike a jar); he is to be told that the similarity obtaining between a word and a jar is deeprooted like that obtaining between two cows while that obtaining between a word and sky is superficial. [The point is that the deep-rootedness and superficiality in question are not precisely defined. Jayanta in his comment brings in the question of ‘relevance and that is significant. Another difficulty is that from the Nyāya point of view the chief objection against the opponent's counter-argument is that a word is not at all an impartite entity, for otherwise the Naiyāyika himself grants the validity of the invariable concomitance 'whatever is an impartite entity is an eternal entity.')
(3-8) The opponent might argue that if a word is non-eternal because it is a produced entity like a jar then (i) a word must be a limited-sized substance as is a jar, (ii) a word must not be audible as a jar is not, (iii) a jar must be the chief subject matter under consideration as is a word, (iv) a word must not be the chief subjectmatter under consideration as a jar is not, (v) a jar must be the object of present demonstration as is a word, (vi) a word must not be the object of present demonstration as a jar is not; he is to be told that a word and a jar are not similar in every respect. [The flimsy character of the opponent's argument is obvious, but the noteworthy thing is that this argument is here being given a serious consideration.)
(9-10) The opponent might argue that if a probans demonstrates the probandum through reaching upto it then it should be difficult to make out as to which one is probans and which one probandum, while it should be impossible for a probans to demonstrate the probandum without reaching upto it; he is to be told that wheel, stick, etc. produce a jar through contacting the lump of clay, an effective ritual kills the enemy from a long distance - the point being that causation is possible both through a physical contacting as also from a distance. [The opponent's argument is pointless and the answer given to him curious.)
(11-12) The opponent might say (i) that the proposition that a jar is a produced entity should itself be demonstrated, (ii) that sky too is a produced entity (e.g., we make sky when we dig a well) but is eternal; he is to be told (i) that what already stands established should not be demonstrated while it star is established that a jar is a produced entity (ii) that he should hit. elf prove why what is a produced entity must be eternal. [The first point is not very
