________________
232
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER Vm.
TEXTS (360-361)
IF THE DESTRUCTION THAT IS BROUGHT ABOUT IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THE THING, THEN THERE IS NOTHING PRODUCED IN THE THING ITSELF BY THOSH OTHER CAUSES (OF THE SAID DESTRUCTION); SO THAT THE EFFECTS, LIKE THE APPREHENSION OF THE THING AND OTHER PHENOMENA, SHOULD CONTINUE AS BEFORE. AND AS THE THING CONTINUES TO REMAIN IN THE SAME CONDITION, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THERE SHOULD BE ANY CONCEALMENT' ETC. OF IT.
-(360-361)
COMMENTARY.
Tho bringing about of one thing cannot confer any benefit on another thing: if it did, then this wonld lead to an absurdity. Nor can it be right to assert that the bringing about of the Destriction related to a thing helps the thing itself, because no relation is known to subsist between them. For instance, inasmucli as the two ace, ex hypothesi, different, the relation between the two cannot be one of identity'; nor can the relation be that of being produced from it, as the destruction is produced only from the * Cause of destruction'; and there can be no other real relation between the two. Even if there were some relation between the two, as the thing is (ex hypothesi) an established positive entity, the apprehension and other effecte produced by it must also be positive entities (and Destruction is not positive) In the compound Upalambhakaryadi', the Upalambha',
Apprehension, itself is meant to be the 'Karya', offect *; and the term adi', and the other phenomena', is meant to include the containing of water (of the Jar), the breaking of the thighs, and so forth.
It might be argued that—" when the thing becomes concealed-or obstructed-by the destruction, which is soinething different from it, it ceases to produce such effects as its own apprehension and the like."
In answer to this it is added 'As the thing continues to remain in the same condition, etc. etc.-Nothing is possible as a concealer' or obstructor of a thing unless it removes its properties or does not produce them; if it were, it would lead to absurdities. Hence it follows that, on account of its previous nature being unabandoned, unconcealed, and unobstructed, there can be no concealment' or 'obstruction of the thing.-(360-361)
The following argument might be urged "It is not possible for the thing (whose destruction has been brought about) to bring about its apprehension and other phenomena ; because the destruction of the thing-being different from it, -has destroyed it.”
This is answered in the following
