________________
366
TATTVASANGRABA : CHAPTER XI.
The term and so forth' is meant to include tho Remembrance of Convention and such other things.
If however what you intend to prove is the fuct of the notions in question having causes other than the said Imaginary Convention and the like, then the reason adducod is inconclusive. This is shown by means of a Reductio ad Absurdum- The existence of Number in Cognition, etc., etc.'- The same cause',-1.e. the fact of being different from the notions (of Elephant etc.). What is meant is that the Number' involved in such notions as
One Cognition', 'Two Cognitions', Five Actions', would be due to the same Cause; as here too 'the difference from the said notions is present : As a matter of fact the said Number is not dne to this circumstance; hence the Reason is Inconclusive.-(645)
Further, you have explained that the number Two which subsists in more than one substance is brought about by several unities' associated with the several Cognitions. But as a matter of fact, there can be no basis for such an assertion. This is what is shown in the following
TEXT (646).
IF THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE NUMBER BE EXPLAINED AS DEPENDENT UPON COGNITIONS, -THEN, WHY CANNOT THE NOTION BE
ACCEPTED AS DUE TO MERE CONVENTION -(646)
COMMENTARY.
The term 'mere ' is meant to exclude such notions as 'one', two' and the rest, the genus constituted by these, and the relationship of these.
Why cannot the notion, etc., etc.;-i.e. the notion of 'two, three four' and so forth, that appear in connection with the numbered things, why cannot this be accepted as brought about by mere Convention ? The advantage in this would be that it would not involve the assuming of the cansality of anything whose potency is not perceived; for if such causality were assumed, then there would be an infinite number of such 'Causes'. It is far more reasonable therefore to postulate the unitary conception itself as the requisite cause,-on the strength of positivo and negative con. comitance. Otherwise, it might be assumed that 'deities, getting at the Haritali, bring about the movement of the bowels (not the Haritaki itself). As a matter of fact too, 'duality and the rest, which have been held to be perceptible apart from things excluded from the aggregate and such entities, are never perceived ; nor are they compatible; because the existence of 'one' in many' has been denied, and 'genus' and 'subsistence' are going to be denied.-(646)
The following Text proceeds to deny Dimension':
