________________
582
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XVI.
TEXTS (1127-1130).
OF THINGS, APPEARANCE is Birth; "DESTRUCTION' IS perishing :
AND CONTINUANCE' IS the Thing in its own form. Now IN Birth THERE IS NO perishing; WHY THEN IS IT SPOKEN OF AS * Utpatti) (FEMININE) ? NOR IS THERE existence in its own form ; WHY THEN IS IT SPOKEN OF AS 'janma (NEUTER)! In Desiruction ALSO, THE OTHER TWO STATES ARE NOT THERE; WHY THEN IS IT SPOKEN OF AS `tirobhāvah' (MASCULINE), 'nāshah' (MASCULINE) AND 'tirobhavanam' (NEUTER)? AS REGARDS Continuance Also, ON WHAT GROUND IS IT SPOKEN OF AS 'sthitih (FEMININE) AND * svabhāvah' (MASCULINE) ?-IF THE FORM OF THESE IS NOT DIFFERENTIATED, THEN THEY SHOULD ALWAYS BE IN ONE AND THE SAME GENDER.—(1127-1130)
COMMENTARY.
For the following reason, the explanation provided is too narrowBecause in connection with the same said states of Continuance and the rest, it is found that to each of these, words of all the three genders are applied. For instance, Appearance is spoken of as 'upāda!' (Birth, Masculino); Destruction is spoken of as näshah (Perishing, Masculine); Continuance is spoken of as 'atmasuarüpam' its own form, Neuter).—Now as regards Appearance, there can be no continuance or destruction' in it; how then could such words as 'utpatti (Feminine) and 'ganma' (Neuter) be applied to it! Similarly as regards Destruction, there can be no con. tinuanco' or appearance in it; how theu could it be spoken of by such terms as "tirobhüvah (Masculine), vinüshah (Masculine) and tirobhavanam' (Neuter) _The particle 'api' in the Teas serves to show that Destruction itself could not be spoken of by that same word.—Similarly, as regards Continuance, Destruction and Appearance being impossible therein,-it has to be explained on what grounds it is spoken of as sthitih' (Feminine) and 'Swabhāea' (Masculine).
It might be said that-"inasmuch as these, Continuance and the rest, are not differentiated among themselves, each of them may be capable of taking all the three Genders".
The answer to this is stated in the words- If the form of these, etc. etc.' ;that is, if the form of these is not differentiated from each other, then there should, in reality, be only one, not three, Genders.-(1127-1130)
The other party says: The Feminine, Masculine and Neuter are so many different Universals, like the Universal Cow and the like."
The answer to this is as follows:
