________________
332
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER X.
the Categorios, then the former Inherence should have to be regarded as different from the latter (and this would involve self-contradiction). (574-575)
It might be argued that "the Property of Existence could belong to the Categories without any relation".-The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (576).
IF NO RELATION IS POSSIBLE, THEN HOW COULD THE PROPERTY BELONG TO THE CATEGORIES -IF IT WERB HELD TO BELONG TO THEM MERELY ON THE GROUND OF ITS BEING PRODUCED BY THEM, THEN THERE WOULD BE OTHERS
ALSO LIKE IT.-(576)
COMMENTARY.
So that it would lead to an absurdity.
If it be held that the Proporty is said to be relatod to the Six Categories, on account of its being produced by them.-then, there are other things also,-such as Water and the like-which would be like it'-i.e. related to things like the Tank and such things, merely on that ground of being produced by them'; and under the circumstances, the postulating of Rolations in the shape of Conjunction and Inherence' would be futile.-(576)
TEXT (577).
FURTHER, AS THERE WOULD BE EXISTENCH' of the Existence ALSO, THE
INCOMPATIBLE (GENITIVE) ENDING WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH IT; AND IF THERE WERE EXISTENCE OF THAT EXISTENCE ALSO, AND SO TORTH, THERE
WOULD BE NO END TO IT.—(577)
COMMENTARY.
Further, even granting that the Property of Existence belongs to the Six Categories, your Reason remains defective (false, inconclusive). For instance, that Existence itself would have existence, as it is an Entity; how then conld there be the Genitive ending in the expression existence of Existence, which (as you say) is based on difference - If it be held that there is yet another existence of the Existence, then there is an Infinito Regress.(577)
Says the Opponent "When it is found necessary and desirable, Infinite Regress' cannot be a defect that can justify the rejection of the Premiss".
The answer to this is as follows:
