________________
460
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XV.
TEXT (851). THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CAPACITY to munifest and to be manifested ALSO IS BASED UPON INHERENCE ITSELF ; IT CANNOT BE DUE TO
ANYTHING ELSE; BECAUSE THERE CAN BE NOTRO
DUCING' OF THINGS THAT ARE ETERNAL.-(851)
COMMENTARY.
Substances have been held to be the manifester of the Universal Substance', -and this on the strength of Inherence itself; because it is on account of the fact that the Universal Substance inheres in a particular substance that it is said to be manifested by it.
It cannot be due to anything else';-.e. to any such circumstance as the production of the character capable of bringing about an idea, which has been postulated by the Buddhist. Because Inherence has been held to exist even in eternal things like · Being and the like--and it is not right that there shonld be any production of what are eternal.-(851)
The same line of argunent is further supported in the following:
TEXT (852)
BY THE MERE PRESENCE OF THE LAMP, THE LAMP DOES NOT BECOME CAPABLE OF PRODUCING ANY NOTIONS; SO ALSO THE UNIVERSALS LIKE JAR' (CANNOT BECOME CAPABLE OF PRODUCING
NOTIONS).-(852)
COMMENTARY
The case of the Pit and the Curd'has been put forward as an example (under Text 844, by Prashastamali'). The following Teal shows that this is not admitted by us :
TEXT (853). THAT THE CONJUNCTION IN THE CASE OF THE CURD AND THE PIT IS ONE ONLY HAS BEEN ALREADY REJECTED BY US BEFORH ; ANY RESTRICTION ON THAT BASIS IS NOT POSSIBLE; AS THAT
WOULD LEAD TO ABSURDITIES.-(583)
COMMENTARY
Before-i.e. in the Chapter on the Refutation of the Quality of Conjunction.
Conjunction may be one only, yet the objection remains this is what is shown in the text Any restriction, etc..
On that basie', - i.e. on the basis of Conjunction.
