________________
EXAMINATION OF THE FIRST CATEGORY
SUBSTANCE
357
to occupy the same point in space; because when one thing comes into contact with Akasha in one form, the other thing also comes into contact with it in the same form ; 50 that other Jars and other things also would appear at the same place; because these would be in contact with Akasha which is in contact with the former thing just like the Jar already existing there. In this way, all Sounds also would appear at one and the same place; and this would be contrary to the generally accepted notion regarding Sounds appearing far off or close by.
These are the difficulties that appear against the Opponent's theory. -(628)
As regards the arguments put forward for proving the existence of Time and Space, these also are generally open to the charge of being
superfluous'; and particularly, the Reason is devoid of the necessary concomitance, and the conclusion is annulled by Inference. This is what is shown in the following
TEXTS (629-630)
THE NOTIONS OF PRIORITY AND POSTERIORITY (AND OF FORE AND AFT') ARE BASED UPON A CONCEPTION ARISING OUT OF PARTICULAR CONVENTIONS ; THEY ARE NOT DUE TO TIME', NOR TO 'Space', INASMUCH AS THESE ARE impartite, ONE, PRIORITY', 'POSTERIORITY' AND THE LIKE ARE NOT POSSIBLE IN THEM. IF THE NOTIONS BE SAID TO BE BASED UPON THE THINGS RELATED TO THEM, THEN THEY THEMSELVES BECOME
USELESS.-(629-630)
COMMENTARY * Particular Conventions',-i.e. the understanding that the epithets prior and posterior are to be applied to things produced before and after, and so forth the conception that arises out of such conventions,-is the basis of the notions in question. Thus it is that there is no mutual interdependence ; as the notion is based entirely upon a particular convention. Thus then, if the other party has set out to prove only that the said notions have a cause, --then it is superfluous (as it is admitted by all parties).
If however he intends to prove that a particiar Substance is that cause, then (1) there is annulment by Inference, (2) absence of concomitance, as before ; and (3) the Reason is contradictory', as it proves what is contrary to the desired conclusion ;-this is what is meant by the words of the Tel- Inasmuch as these are impartite
Related to them',-1.e. to Space and Time.
As a matter of fact, what is desired to be proved is that the notion of * Priority and Posteriority and so forth is based upon the impartite and single substances, Time and Space ;--this is not proved by the Reason
