________________
370
TATTVASANORARA : CHAPTER XI.
TEXT (665). IF THE WATER, ETO. NEEDED THE CONJUNOTION ONLY, THEN THEY WOULD APPEAR IMEDIATELY ON THEIR COMING TOGETHER (CONJUNCTION).
-OR NOT APPEAR AT ALL.-(665)
COMMENTARY If the Soil, Water and the rest needed only their Conjunction to bring about their effect in the shape of the sprout, then it should come about as soon as they come into contact with one another; because the Cause would be there in its perfect form,-exactly as it does later on. If the effect does not appear immediately on their first contact, then it should not appear at all, even later on; as the Cause would even then be as defective as on the previous occasion. Nor would it be reasonable to suppose that the soil, etc. Are dependent upon Conjunction which does not help them at all; as sneh a theory would lead to absurdities.-Nor again is it right to regard the Conjunction ns appearing only occasionally; as the cause (basis) in the shape of the soil, etc. is always there.-It might be held that-"in the bringing about of the Conjunction also, there is noed for such forces as those of * Destiny' and the like "-But this cannot be right : because the same objec. tion would be applicable against that view also. For instance, what would be the answer to the question- Why does not the said Destiny bring about the effect at once ?!-The answer might be that it does not do so, be: cause the requisite urge is absent in the Cause" -Then comes the Question -why should there be this absence of the requisite urge ?-Such Questions would be everywhere inevitable under the theory of Causes being permanent entities.--For one, on the other hand, who holds all things to be impermanent (momentary), -as the chain of all (momentary) causes is beginningless, there can be no possibility of the anomaly of all things being produced at one and the same time; because the succeeding causes would all be restricted by the preceding ones (in the same Chain), and hence the Causes of these could not be present at the same time by reason of their own causes not being present in their perfect condition. Thus it is only under your doctrine that there is possibility of the anomaly of the Soil, etc. prociucing the wprout at all times; hence it becomes established that the Soil, etc. do not reqnire any such distinct thing as Conjunction':-(665)
It has been asserted (under Tert 656 above) that-'as Conjunction has a particular characteristic it is regarded as distinct".--This is answered in the following
TEXT (666). WHEN A MAN SEES TWO THINGS HAVING COME CLOSE TOGETHER BY THEMSELVES, HE BRINGS THOSE THINGS IN THAT CONDITION (WHEN
TOLD TO DO SO).—(666)
COMMENTARY As a matter of fact, what falls within the range of the perceiver's vision is not any distinct thing in the shape of Conjunction, by noticing which he
