________________
372
TATTVASASTRAHA : CHAPTER XI.
tion'; hence thone is non-perception of the wider condition (which makes the less extensive conclusion impossible).—(653)
The following Texts (654-663) set forth the arguments adduced by Udliyotabara, which are calculated to show that the Author's own Reasons are Unproven' (Not admitted) :
TEXTS (651-657),
"IF THERE WERE NO Conjunction, THEN THE Som, The SeeD, THE WATER AND THE EARTH AND SUCH THINGS SHOULD BE ALWAYS PRODUCING THEIR EFFECTS; AS THERE WOULD BE NO GROUND FOR DIFFERENTIATION. -AS A MATTER OF FAUT HOWEVER, THE Son, THE SEED, THE WATER AND SUCH THINGS ARE ALWAYS FOUND TO RIQUIRE SOMETHING ELSE IN THE PRODUCING OF THEIR EFFECTS LIKE THE STICK, THE WHEEL AND WATER, ETC, (IN THE MAKING OF JAR). THAT THING WHICH THEY REQUIRE IS Conjunction; AND AS IT HAS A PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTIC, IT IS REGARDED AS DISTINCT FROM OTHER THINGS). WHEN ONE IS TOLD TO BRING TWO CONJOINED THINGS, HE BRINGS ONLY THOSE TWO THINGS IN WHICH HD PERCEIVES THE CONJUNCTION, AVOIDING EVERY
THING ELSE." -(654-657)
COMMENTARY
Uddyotakara has argued as follows (in Nyaytvartika on 2. 1. 33, Page 221, Bib. Ind.]:-"If Conjunction were not a distinct thing, then, of such things as the soil, the seed, etc.-each itself being always there, they would always produce their effects in the form of the sprout, etc. As a matter of fact however, they do not do so. Hence from the fact of the non-production of the effects always, it is understood that the soil, ete, require the help of some other thing, in the producing of the effect in the shape of the sprout: just as in the producing of the Jar, the Clay, the Stick, the Water, the Thread, eto, require the help of the Potter. Hence it is established that this something else that they need is Conjunction.
*Then again, the Conjunction between two substances is perceived as a qualification of those substances, and hence it is directly perceived as something different from those substances. For instance, when someone is told by another person to bring two conjoined things', he brings only those two things in which he perceives the Conjunction, and not any Substance at random. If the Conjunction were not something real and different, he might bring anything.
"All these arguments put inversely are to be used in proving the existence of Disjunction."-(654–657)
