________________
EXAMINATION OF SAMAVĀYA' (INHERENOE, SUBSISTENCE).
451
TEXTS (824-826). "IF THERE WERE NO SUCH THING (As Inherence), WHAT WOULD BE THE BASIS OF THE SAID NOTION ? NO PARTICULAR NOTION IS FOUND TO APPEAR WITHOUT A PARTICULAR CAUSE-INASMUCH AS THE SAME NOTION OF 'SUBSISTING HEREIN' IS EQUALLY PRESENT IN ALL CASES, INHERENCE DOES NOT VARY, LIKE CONJUNCTION, IN FACT IT IS PERCEIVED IN ALL THINGS AS ONE AND THE SAME, JUST LIKE 'EXISTENCE'. -INASMUCH AS ITS CAUSE IS NEVER APPREHENDED, IT IS ETERNAL,-LIKE EXISTENCE'. BY NO MEANS OF VALID COGNITION
15 ITS CAUSE APPREHENDED."-(824-826)
COMMENTARY.
"Unless there is some basis for the notion, the notion of existence', etc. would always be there this is the Inferential argument subversive of your doctrine,
"This under the theory of the Vaishēşika, Inherence is inferred from the presence of the notion of 'subsisting in thuis'; while according to the Naiyāyika, it is directly perceived in the notion of subsisting in this'. That is to say, when the sense-organ is functioning, there appears the perception that 'the Cloth subsists in these yarns', and on the basis of this, they declare this notion to be * Perception
"This Inherence (which is a form of Relation) does not vary with the varions correlatives, -as Conjunction does; in fact, like Existenca', * Being-it is one and the same everywhere ; for the simple reason that its indicative feature, the notion of subsisting in this', -is overywhere the same.
"* Like Conjunction '-is an Instance per dissimilarity,
"Having no cause.-Inherence is eternal,-again like existence ? The fact of its having no cause is proved by the fact of no Cause of it being cognised by any means of Cognition."-(824-826)
With the following Text, the Author proceeds to set forth the objections against Inherence:
TEXT (827). AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE DRA OF SUBSISTING IN THIS EXISTS FOR OUR OPPONENTS ONLY; AND IT IS DUE ENTIRELY TO THEIR INTATUATION WITH THEIR OWN DOCTRINE; IT IS NEVER MET WITH IN COMMON EXPERIENCE.
-(827)
COMMENTARY. This points out that the Opponent's Reason is open to the fallacy of its substratum being unknown'. Such ideas as the cloth subsists in these
