________________
ON
QUALITY AS A CATEGORY.
385
The following Text supplies the answer to this argument (of Aviddhakarna)
TEXTS (680-681).
IN REALITY, THE GROUP' IS ABSOLUTELY FEATURIO-LESS; TIENCE, LIKE
THE SKY-LOTUS ', IT CAN HAVE NO SPECIFIO PROPERTIES ; THEY ARE ALL FIGMENTS OF IMAGINATION.--EVEN WHEN STATED IN THIS FORM, THE REASONING ADDUCED WOULD BETALLIBLE', IN VIEW OF THINGS LIKE THE
SKY.LOTUS'. IN FACT, NON-DIFFERENCE AS WELL AS DIFFERENCE 'RESTS ALWAYS
IN AN OBJEOT.-(680.681)
COMMENTARY.
I! what is meant to be the Ronson is the presence of real specific pro. perties, then it cannot be regarded as 'ndmitted by both parties) : bocanse for the Bawlitha, it cannot be admitted thnt the 'Chnin' and other things which have merely illusory existence' are endowed with any real specific properties. ---If however the Reason is meant to be put forward only in a vague generul sort of wny, then such imaginary properties as non-existonce! *incorporeality' etc. are present also in the sky-lotus' and such things; - hence the Reason adduced becomes 'fallible', 'inconclusive
Even when stater in this form '; -i.e. if the assertion is made in a vagne general sort of way, without reference to any woll-cotermined specific properties.
For the following reason also the Reason is 'fallible-inconclusive' Because non-clifference '- sameness—and difference being something else, rcst alunys in an object, -not anywhere else. The Chain' and other things have a more ideal ' existence, and as such are not oljects : how then conla there be any difference or non-difference from there?
Thus then, it has been shown that, in the first argument (propounded by Apildhakarna), it whnt is monnt to be provod is merely the donial of the non-difference of Numbor, etc. from Substance, then thore is "futility'. —(680-681)
It might be nrgued that-"it is not more denial of non-difference that wa seek to ostablish, but, in view of the fact that two negatives make ono affirmativo, hy manns of the two negativos we are seeking to prove the difference of Numbor, otc. from Substance". This is the reasoning that is refuted in the following text :
25
