________________
TATTVA-KAUMUDI
[1872–
analogous to the assertion ‘There are Tilaka trees in the forest'.-(c) As for the difference in the useful purpose served, that also does not establish the difference between the cause and the effect; because one and the same thing is found to serve several useful purposes; for instance, the single thing, Fire, serves the purposes of burning, cooking and lighting. As a matter of fact, any variation of functions cannot be a ground of difference; because we find that the functions of the same things vary with their operating collectively or severally; for instance, each individual Bearer performs the furction of indicating the path, but not that of carrying the palanquin, while collectively, they carry the palanquin; in the same manner, even though the yarns severally do not serve the purpose of covering, yet on combining and thereby appearing in the form of the cloth, they can serve the purpose of covering.
(72) Opponent.—“[You say that the cloth is already
existent in the cause, the yarns; and when An objeccion based on the nature of it is supposed to be produced, it is only the mantestation manifested. )--Now, was this manifestation of the cffect
fect of the cloth existent, before the operation of the cause ? Or was it non-existent ? If the latter, then the production of what was non-existent becomes admitted. If the former, then the causal operation is superfluous. When the effect (in the shape of the manifestation of the cloth) is already there, we see no use for the operation of the cause. If it be said that 'though the manifestation is 'existent', yet it is the manifestation of this manifestation (for which the operation of the cause is needed); -- then this would involve an endless series of 'manifestations. Thus we conclude that there is no sense in the assertion that when the cloth is produced what happens is that the yarns become manifested in the form of cloth."
