________________
-1870]
TRANSLATION
35
actually seeing the effect brought about; so that there would be no absence of restriction ( such as has been argued above)".
Answer : (4) “Because the efficient Cause can do only that for which it is efficient. "-Now then, asks our author, does this efficiency' subsist in the efficient cause operative on all things or upon that effect only which is amenable to that efficiency? If the former, then the same confusion arises; of the latter, then it has to be explained how it can operate upon what is 'non-existent'. On this point if it be asserted that "the ( causal ) efficiency itself is so constituted as to produce only certain effects, not all”,-then we ask-Is this peculiarly constituted efficiency of yours connected with the particular effect or not ? In the former case, no relation being possible with what is ‘non-existent', the effect will have to be regarded as 'existent '; in the latter, you have the same confusion remaining.-Thus it is rightly argued that because the cfficient cause can do only that for which it is efficient' (the effect cannot be 'non-existent').
(69) (5) For the following reason also the effect should be regarded as existent:-"Because the effect is of the same essence as the cause.”—The effect is not different from the cause; and the cause is existent; then how can the effect, nonseparate from this latter, be 'non-existent'? (70) The proofs establishing the non-difference of the
effect from the cause are the following: (a) Proofs of the non-The cloth ( an effect) is not different from difference of cause and effect the yarns (constituting it),--because it sub
sists in the yarns;-an object differing in ats essence from another, can never subsist in it; as the cow in the horse; but the cloth does subsist in the yarns;-hence it follows that it is not different from the cause.
(6) The Cloth and the Yarns cannot be different things, because the latter is the constituent cause of the former ;whore any two things are entirely different, one is never found
