________________
EXAMINATION OF 'SAMAVÄYA' (INHERENCE, SUBSISTENCE).
459
*Substance in particular Substances,—then Inherence should vary with each substratum ; just as Conjunction does.-(848)
It has been argued (by Prashastamati, under Text 843, above) that"From seeing the absence of such basis as the Universal of Substance', ete, it is concluded that the scope of these Universals is restricted."- This is answered in the following
TEXT (849).
IT IS NOT POSSIBLIO THAT THERE SHOULD BE ABSENCE OF NOTIONS BASDD UPON THE UNIVERSAL 'SORSTANCE', -WHEN THE BASIS IS THERE. FOR THE SAME REASON THERE CANNOT BE
RESTRICTION OF IT.-(849)
COMMENTARY. So long as the cause is there in its perfect condition, there cannot be absence of the effect; if it were there, then, it would not be the effect of that canse. Thus then the absence of the said notion being impossible, the restriction regarding the relation of container and contained also cannot be right.-(849)
"The restriction could be based upon such common expressions as The Universal Substance is contained-subsists-in Substances only."
Answer:
TEXT (850).
THE EXPRESSIONS OF BEING CONTAINED' AND SUBSISTING' AND THE LIKE ALSO ARE BASED UPON THE SAME 'INHERENCE'; HENCE
THESE ALSO CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF RESTRICTION.-(850)
COMMENTARY.
The use of expressions like being contained', 'subsisting' and so forth also are explained by you as based upon the same Inherenca'; and as this is the same everywhere, how could it serve to restrict anything? Hence these notions of contained in', etc. cannot serve as the basis of restricting the relation of Container and Contained. Because the notions in question stand upon the same footing as this latter relation.-(850)
“In that case the Restriction may be due to the limitations relating to the capacity to manifest and be manifested."
Answer:
