________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERMANENCE OF THINGS. 259
Thus it is established that Akūsha and other things which are held to be non-momentary (permanent) can only be regarded as non-existent',
- like the son of the Barren Woman',-because they are devoid of the capacity for effective action, functioning either successively or simultaneously. -(415-416)
TEXT (417).
IF, THEN, CAPACITY (FOR FRUITFUL ACTION) BE NOT ADMITTED TO BE THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURE OF THE ENTITY, THEN, UNDER TEE OTROUMSTANCES, IT BEHOVES THE OTHER PARTY TO POINT OUT SOME OTHER CHARACTERISTIC FEATURE OF
ENTITIES": -(417)
COMMENTARY.
It might be argued that I capacity for effective action were the characteristio feature of entilies, then alone all this would be very well "-In that case it should be explained what their characteristic feature is. As a matter of fact, when it is said that the 'Hare's Horn and such thing are nonentities, this idea is based entirely upon the absence in them of the capacity for effective action. Then, inasmuch as entity" and non-entity' are mutually exclusive, it follows, by implication, that the characteristic feature of "entity', as distinguished from *non-entity', consists in its capacity for effective action.-(417)
The following Text anticipates the opponent's answer to the above :
TEXT (418).
IF THE CHARACTERISTIO FEATURE OF 'ENTITIES' BE HELD TO CONSIST IN being related to existence (Being),—THAT CANNOT BE RICHT; BECAUSE NO SUCH RELATION AS THAT OF
INHERENCE' AND THE LIKE IS KNOWN TO SUBSIST BETWEEN THEM. HOW TOO COULD THEY BE THE CHARACTERISTIO FEATURE OF ONE
ANOTHER !-(418)
COMMENTARY.
[Says the Opponent]" Capacity for effective action is not the character. istic feature of entities; it is being related to existence, i.e., the Inherence of existenca (Being)', that is their characteristic feature.”
The answer to this is—That cannot be right; i.e. that cannot be the right characteristic feature of entities;- because no such relation as that of Inher.
