________________
234
TATIVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER VIII.
Hence what is of the nature of the negation of entity, i.e. what consists of the denial of existence,-- cannot be brought about by anything,--simply because it is a non-entity,-like the 'Haro's Horns. Otherwise (if it were something produced) then it would be an effect, and as such an entity, like the sprout and other effects. This argument may be formulated as follows - Whab is an effect must be an entity, as the sprout and other things, -and Destruction is an effect (ex hypothesi), hence this is a natural reason (for regarding it as an effect).
The author states the invariable concomitance (Premiss) of this reasoning-Because it is found to come about through the polency of a Cause. As a matter of fact, thot alone is said to be an effect' which acquires an accretion to its nature through the potency of a Cause; and it is only an entity that can acquire such accretion to its nature.
This point is not disputed even by the Naiyāyika and others: As these people also declare the character of the effect' to be either inherence in Being or inliorence in a Cause'; and Destruction cannot in here either in Being or in its Cause ; for, if il did, then, like Substanco and other things, it would have to be regarded as a substratum of existence' (i.e. an entity).(363-364)
Says the opponent"If that is so, lot the Destruction be an entity, what is the larm in that?"
Answer:
TEXT (365) THE VIEW THAT NEGATION IS BROUGHT BY AN AFFIRMATION HAS BEEN SOUGHT TO BE SUPPORTED BY HAVING RECOURSE TO PRECLUSION (AS THE FORM OF THE NEGATION SO BROUGHT ABOUT) BUT THE ARGUMENT BASED UPON THE ALTERNATIVES POSSIBLE REGARDING DIFFERENCE OR NON-DIFFERENCE, ALL BECOME APPLICABLE TO TRIS
VIEW.-(365)
COMMENTARY.
How is Negation brought about by Affirmation?' In answer to this question the other party has recourse to Preclusion', i.e. the assertion that it is Negation in the form of Preclusion that is so brought about ; that is to say, through the speaker's choice sometimes even an entity is spoken of 23 a different form (negation) of some other entity. With this explanation also the view is open to all those arguments that have been urged above as based upon the alternatives of difference' or 'non-difference' etc.-(365)
If, for fear of this criticism, it be held that-“what is brought about by the Causes of Destruction' is Negation,-not in the form of Proclusion', --but in the form of the absoluto negation."-But here also, the inefficacy of the cause of Destruction would be still clearer.
This is what is shown in the following
