________________
-IX77]
TRANSLATION
39
(73) This is not so, we reply. Even under your own
theory that the non-existent effect is produced, Reply-The objection set aside what is this production"? Is it existent or as common to non-existent ? If it is existent, then there is both theories
no need for the causes. If it is non-existent, then there should be production of that 'production' also, - so that there would be an endless series of productions'.
(74) If, in order to avoid the endless series of productions', you hold that the 'production' is nothing more or less than the 'cloth' itself, then the term 'cloth' would be syno. nymous with production'; so that, when the term 'cloth has been uttered, one should not utter the term 'is produced (because it would be a useless repetition); nor could one say 'the cloth is destroyed '; because destruction and production (denoted by cloth) can never co-exist. :
(75) Thus, (Even under the Nyāya theory] the 'produc. tion of the cloth' must consist either in the inherence of the cloth in its cause', or in the inherence of the cloth in its Being '; in either case, the said Production cannot be produced (as Inherence is eternal); and yet for the purposes of that production' several causes have to be set into operation. And (just as you need the causes for the bringing about of the
production' which is eternal), so would there be need for causes for the manifestation of the already existent products like the cloth.—The causes cannot be related to the form of the cloth; because the form is not an operation, and it is only to an operation that causes are directly related; as otherwise ( without being related to operation ) they would not be 'causes' (active) at all.
(76) Thus, it has been fully established that the Effect is ever existent.
(77) Having thus proved the effect to be existent', a fact favourable to the proof of the existence of Nature, the author next states the similarity and dissimilarity between the
