________________
424
TATTVACANOR HA: CHAPTER SIE.
This argument is answered in the following
TEXT (763).
WHAT IS IT THAT IS CALLED PRINCIPAL CHARACTER'!-IT CANNOT BE A
POTENCY, BECAUSE THIS DOES NOT SUBSIST (IN OTHER INDIVIDUALS). -FOR THE SAME REASON IT CANNOT BE SAID TO CONSIST IN THE NATURE OF THE SUBSTANCE, QUALITY OR AOTIOX,
ETO.—(763)
COMMENTARY
What is this 'Principal Character
If it is a Potency, that cannot be right; as potency in restricted to each individual substratum, and must therefore vary with each individual object, and cannot subsist in another object.
For the same reason, it cannot consist in the nature ' sance, selfsufficiency, -of Substance, etc.; as this also cannot belong in common to several objects.
The term 'etc.' is meant to include any entity that may be held to be distinct from Substance, Quality and Action.
As regards the explanation offered (by Uddyotakara) of the assertion that "the appearance of the notions in question is due to other causes", this has already been answered by pointing out that if some sort of a Cause is meant, then the argument is futile, as we also admit it as being due to Conventional Conception if on the other hand any particular Cause is meant, then there is 'absence of concomitance and also Falsitx, in view of such notions as those of the Cook and the like. (763)
The following Texts sum up the Anthor's position
TEXTS (764-765).
THUS THE NOTION THAT APPEARS IN REGARD TO THE COOK IS DEPENDENT
ONLY UPON THE DIVERSITY OF CONVENTION, AND APPREHENDS ONLY THE FORM THAT PRECLUDES ALL UNLIKE TRINGSFROM ALL THIS IT FOLLOWS THAT ALL NAMES AND NOTIONS PROCEED DIVERSELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONVENTION, WITHOUT THERE BEING
ANY ALL-EMBRAOING ENTITY.—(764-765)
COMMENTARY
Thus, because no other cause is found. on examination, for the notions of the Cook and the rest, therefore,-even in connection with diverse
