________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERMANENCE OF THINGS. 255
TEXT (408).
IN COURSE OF THE EXAMINATION OF THE PUDGALA, ETC. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT BOTH ALTERNATIVES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HENCE THE CONDITION CANNOT BE BOTA DIFFERENT ' AND NON-DIFFERENT'; NOR CAN IT BE NEITHER DIFFERENT
NOR 'NON-DIFFERENT' (408)
COMMENTARY. The other party now puts forward the view that the 'Auxiliaries of the Permanent Thing becomo so by reason of their serving the same purpose as the latter (the second alternative suggested under Text 397). To this effect, some people argue as follows: "The Permanent Thing does not require the Auxiliaries, and yet apart from the Auxiliaries, it cannot bring about its effect; the fact of the matter is that its very nature is such that it produces its effect only when all its auxiliaries are close to it-and never by itself, like the Final Cause. Hence even though the thing be always present, there is no possibility of all its effects being produced simultaneous.
This is the view set forth in the following
TEXTS (409-410).
" EVEN THOUGH THE PERMANENT THING MAY NOT ACTUALLY NEED THE AUXILIARY AGENCIES, YET, APART FROM THESE LATTER, IT CANNOT PRODUCE ITS EFFECT, LIKE THE FINAL CAUSE ; ITS OWN NATURE
IS SUCH THAT IT BECOMES AN EFFICIENT CAUSE ONLY WHEN IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE AUXILIARIES; HENCE IT IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PERMANENT THING IS ALWAYS PRESENT, ITS EFFECT DOES NOT COME ABOUT
ALWAYS."-(409-410)
COMMENTARY The 'na' (at the end of the second line) goes with carakah
Like the Final Cause '; - this is meant to be the Corroborative Instance per dissimilarity; or it may be taken as the Corroborative Instance per similarity in support of the proposition stated in the last line it becomes an eficient cause, etc.'
The term "hëtuat' is to be analysed as "hetoh (with the genitive ending) * iva'.
*Even though the Permanent thing, etc. -i.e., even though the Permanent Thing is always there.-(409-410)
The above view is answered in the following
