________________
( 209 )
any diference in the nature of these two characters And being aon different why should it not be regarded as one PT
The diversity of properties ( dharmabheda ) also cannot be accepted there, since the diversity or plurality cannot be one. As regards the potencies ( faktinām ), their diversity is merely a creation of the speakers' desire to speak. As it is crystal clear that both, affirmation and denial, cannot exist in one thing. we bava to regard the self-contradiction between unity and plurality. Hence, he observes that any diversity of properties of a single entity can only be a creation of fancy (kalpita ). 188
In diversity ( stage of an entity which is excluded from several like and unlike things to this and that ) even a single thing may be assumed to have numberless diverse forms; but in reality no single thing can reasonably have two forms.
Santaraksita further gives a traditional example of Naris in ha. He says : such entities as nara ritha and others which have been described as possessing dual characters are also not real but conceptual ( kalpita ). These arguments of Santarakṣita resemble those of Arcata. 129
Thus he arrives at the conclusion that duel character of a thing is figment of mere imagination. Karņakago min and Syādvāda
Karnakagomin in the Pramanavārtikasvavfititika refers to the Digambaras' theory of relativity, according to which they accept the mutual negation ( anyonyabhava) to distinguish the realities, so that they should not be confused. He then starts, to criticise the view that the distinction among things, cannot be identified by mutual Degation, which is possible in entities. produced by non-different causes. If they originate from. different causes, how does anyonyābhava come into existence 7180
Further he tried to show the defects in the Jaina's theory of universal-cum-particular character of urdhuatāsāmänyatmaka and tiryaksamanyātmaka vastu. He then rejects the theory saying that there should be either abheda or atyantabheda
