________________
EXAMINATION OF SAMAVĀYA' (INEERENCE, SUBSISTENCE).
461
The absurdity' referred to lies in the possibility of such notions as the Pit in the Curd '; as the only ground for it-in the shape of Conjunction, -- would be equally available in this also.-(853)
It has been argued above (under Text 826) that "Inherence must be eternal, because no Cause of it is perceived ".-This is answered in the following
TEXT (854). BY THE ETERNALITY OF INHERENCE ALL THINOS BECOME ETERNAL: BECAUSE ALL THESE ARE EVER PRESENT, BY INHERENCE IN
THEIR OWN SUBSTRATUM. -(854)
COMMENTARY. If Inherence is eternal, then the Jnr and other things also will have to be regarded as eternal; as they exist for ever in their own substratum. In fact, it is on the ground oi Inherence that these things are held to subsist in their substratum, and this Inherence is eternal ;-why then should not the things persist for ever -(854)
In the following Texts, the Author anticipates and answers the Opponent's reply :
TEXTS (855.856). " THINGS BECOME DESTROYED EITHER THROUGH THE DISRUPTION OF THEIR
COMPONENTS, OR THROUGH THE DESTRUCTION OF THESE, JUST LIKE ACTION, ON ACCOUNT OF CONJUNCTION AND SUCH OTHER CAUSES" ;IF THIS IS URGED, THEN, THAT CAN. NOT BE SO BECAUSE THE INHERENCE OF THESE COMPONENTS ALSO IN THEIR SUBSTRATUM IS HELD TO BE ETERNAL. IF THESE CAME TO DESTRUCTION, THEN INHERENCE ALSO WOULD BECOME DESTRUC
TIBLE.”—(855-856)
COMMENTARY. The following might be urged by the Opponent :-"The Jar and other things become destroyed either through the disruption of their component parts or through the destruction of the parts : just as, while the Jar is in the state of being whirled or baked, its action (motion) becomes destroyed by the contact of a solid substance. This has been thus declared- By the contact of solid substances, the action becomes destroyed, as also the action unfavourable to the production of the effect. Similarly one Cognition becomes destroyed through another Cognition; one Sound becomes destroyed through another Sound."
Such is the Opponent's scheme. What he means is that, even though the Inherence may be there as the basis of the object's continued existence,
