________________
110
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER IV.
the
of the cansal relation cannot be true. From all this it follows that origination of all things is independent of all causes."-(112)
The Author answers tle above argunents of the upholder of the Thing by Itself with the following Texts:
TEXTS (113-114).
As REGARDS THE LOTUS AND ITS FILAMENTS, ETC., IT IS DEFINITELY
ASCERTAINED THROUGH PERCEPTION AND NON-APPREHENSION THAT THEY HAVE THEIR CAUSE IN THE SEED, CLAY, WATER AND THE REST UNDER CERTAIN PECULIAR CONDITIONS, WITH WHICH LATTER THEY ARD POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY CONCOMITANT; SUCH BEING THE CASE, WHAT OTHER CAUSE' CAN THERE BE OF THOSE, WHICH YOU ARE ASKING
ABOUT -(113-114)
COMMENTARY.
By this Text, the Author shows that the Renson adduced by the other party is unproven and finadmissible, and the conclusion put forward is contrary to perceived facts.
It has been asserted (under Text 111) that of such things as the Lotus, its Filaments and the like, no Cause is perceived " -This is not admitted '; as through Perception and Non-apprehension, such . Cause is definitely cognised to consist in the Seed, Clay, Water and such things, with which the said things are positively and negatively concomitant. To explain; when it is found that a certain thing is produced only when another thing is present, and it becomes modified by the modifications of this latter,
then this latter thing is said to be the cause of the former thing. Such a Cause of the Lotus and its Filaments, etc.' is found in the shape of the Seed, eto, -which under certain peculiar conditions, such as becoming swollen under moisture and so forth,-serves as their Cause', with which they are positively and negatively concomitant, i.e. the Lotus, etc. come into existenco only when the Seed, etc. are present, and they do not come into existence when these latter are absent;that these are the Cause' of the Lotus, etc. is definitely ascertained through Perception and Non-apprehension.Thus the Reason (Premiss) put forward by the other party is 'inadmissible', not true.
Then again, it has been urged that the definition of 'Causal Relation' is not true (fallible)". -This Reason also is 'unproven', not admissible; as, in the instance cited, as Touch also is a cause of Colour, it is admitted to be the cause of Visual Cognition also. To explain,-the term 'touch' (in this connection) stands for the material substance, and it is only by associating with those substances that Colour subsiste; hence in regard to Visunl
