________________
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XVII.
between them. Because that is supposed to be a non-entity which is not anything; and such a thing cannot be either distinguished' from, or similar to, the Universal. If it were, it would be an Entity.--Even if the Void-ie. the Non-entity--were distinguished from the Universal, then also it would be an entity: because a non-entity cannot have the character of being distinguished'; and without the character of being distinguished'a thing cannot be regarded as distinguished'.-Nor can the Non-entity be similar to the Universal; es even so it would have to be an entity. A non-entity cannot have a form similar to something else ; and unless a thing has a forma similar to another's, it cannot be regarded as similar to it; as otherwise it would lead to an absurdity. Hence relatively to the Void (Non-entity), the Universal cannot be said to be either distinguished (distinct) or similar. Because when one thing is either distinct or similar in relation to another thing, then this latter also has to be regarded as distinct from, or similar to, the former. If it were not so, then the others also could not be perceived as distinct from, or similar to, it.-Further, there is no such thing as 'non-entity' apart from entity; when an entity is not found to be another entity, it is called 'nonentity' in relation to it; how then could it be distinguished '?"
All this has been argued by Sumati; as against all this, the Author proceeds to urge as follows:
TEXT (1284),
As A MATTER OF FACT, IN THE CASE OF THE entity ALSO, BEING 'DISTINGUISHED' CONSISTS IN not being that same; AND AS THE UNIVERSAL 19 not the same AS THE NON-ENTITY, WHY CAN YOU NOT REGARD IT AS BEING DISTINGUISHED 'FROM THE NON-ENTITY?
-(1284)
COMMENTARY, In the case of the entity also, when it is distinguished' from Non-entity, this being distinguished' is not anything different, it is only the negation oj sameness; the meaning being that it is not the same as the other; and this can be equally so in the case of the Universal also, in relation to the Non. entity, like the Hare's Horn. Because the Hare's Horn is a non-entity in the sense that it is not capable of any action whatever the Universal on the other hand is not regarded as so incapable :-90 that its being distinguished from the Non-entity is quite clear. That there should be the distinction of the Universal from the Non-entity, and yet the Non-entity does not become an entity-that is nothing very important.
As regards the Non-entity, the assertion (made by Sumati) that it is nothing different from Entity and so forth, it is clear that the writer has not pondered over the meaning of his own Assertion : Because when it is said that an Entity is not found to be another entity', the fact of its being distinguished from it becomes asserted; because it speaks of its preclusion from it.-AN
