________________
HXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERMANENCE OF THINGS. 245
because Properties have no existence by themselves ;- if they did, then they would cease to be Properties. Nor are Akasha, etc. uncreated things,-be. cause, being devoid of all potentiality, they are to be spoken of as 'non. existent like the son of the Barren Woman'. This argument may be formulated as follows:-A thing that is devoid of all potentiality must be non-existent-like the son of the Barren Woman':-, käsha, etc. are devoid of all potentiality; so that this is a natural reason (for regarding them as non-existent); or in reality, there is absence of the more extensive character (which implies the absence of the less extensive character). - Nor can the Reason ad duced be said to be 'inconclusive', as this alone is enough to justify the notion of non-existence'. Nor can the Reason be said to be 'unproven'; as we shall explain later on. Nor, lastly, can it be said to be contradictory'; as it is found to be present in all cases where the Probandum is known to be present.-(385-386)
Question " Why cannot the question of momentariness or nonmomentariness arise in regard to a non-entity ?"
The answer is provided in the following
TEXT (387).
THAT THING IS SAID TO BH'MOMENTARY' WHOSE FORM PERSISTS FOR A MOMENT; WHILE THAT THING IS SAID TO BE 'NonMOMENTARY' WHICH IS ENDOWED WITH A LASTING
(PERMANENT) TORM.-(387)
COMMENTARY The meaning of this is clear.-(387)
Uddyotakara has put forward the following argument :-"The term Kganika' (*momentary') contains the Possessive Affix ('than', by Panini 5-2-115): how does this affix come in ? If, in accordance with the Nirukla, ksana' stands for kepaya, Destruction, and the term 'kşanika' means that tohich has destruction, this cannot be right; because of the difference in time; that is, at the time that there is Destruction, the thing to which it belongs is not there (having ceased to exist); and the Possessive affix is never found to be used in connection with things that exist at different times. If (with a view to escaping from that difficulty) it be held that the positive entity itself, as qualified by its impending destruction, is what is spoken of as 'ksanika'. (momentary').-even so, it is not possible for the thing qualified by the destruction to be spoken of as possessing that Destruction ; and thus also the use of the Possessive affix would be injustifiable. If what is meant by things being * Tsanika' momentary, is that the time of their existence is only one moment; and that having posited the 'ksana', 'Moment', as the lowest conceivable measure of time, we call those things momentary' which continue to exist only during that point of time then
