________________
-1X65]
TRANSLATION
33
(64) [ As regards the Vedanta theory ) the belief in Th.
the existence of the phenomenal world can view met ta not be said to be illusory unless we have
some proof invalidating its existence.* [ Hence the effect cannot be regarded as a mere illusory evolution ']. (65) Now remains the theory of Gautama and Kaņāda,
with reference to which the author asserts The Nyaya and " The effect is existent." Vais'e sika view
In support of criticised; and the this assertion, the following proofs are adSamkhya view established
niew duced — (1) “What is non-existent cannot be
produced." If the effect were 'non-existent' before the operation of the cause, it could never be brought into existence by anybody; by even a thousand artists blue can never be made yellow. If it be held that “ 'existence and 'non-existence are mere properties belonging to the jar,' even so, if the object to which the property belongs is ‘nonexistent', there can be no property belonging to that object; so that the question of the 'existence of the jar remains as it was (and is not affected by your assertion). Nor can 'non-existence' (be the property of the jar); because of the 'non-existence' is unconnected and non-coalescent with the jar (as it must be, the jar being now existent, ex-hypothesis), how could the jar be regarded as 'non-existent' ?-Hence it follows that, as after the causal operation so also before it, the effect must be 'existent'.
Such being the case, all that remains to be done by the cause is the manifestation or unfolding of the pre-existing effect [i. e., its ernanation from the cause wherein it has been lying latent). The manifestation of something already existing is a fact quite compatible with experience; e, g. there
* This is urged against the Vedānta theory of the effect being an evolution from a single real entity.
T.3
