________________
848
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XX.
to be real. But in no case can Plurality belong to what is one, as the two are mutually contradictory--(1748-1749)
It has been argued (under Text 1712, above)"For that which has been excluded from Entity", where could there be any other position?”
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (1750). IF A CERTAIN THING WERE EXCLUDED FROM ONE 'ENTITY, IT WOULD BE DEVOID OF SAMENESS ONLY WITH THAT ENTITY ; IT WOULD NOT BECOME LIKE THE SKY-FLOWER';-AS IT WOULD STILL BE CAPABLE OF EFFICIENT AOTION.
. -1750)
COMMENTARY. If what is cited as the Reason is exclusion of all entities', ind similarity to the sky-flower' is meant to be proved by it.-then the Reason is 'inadmissible'; because the exclusion of the Jar from all entities, cannot be admitted ; all that can be admitted is that it is excluded or differentiated from things other than itself.
If, on the other hand, the Reason meant to be adduced is exclusion from some things, then it is 'Inconclusive
For instance, the Jar, excluded or differentiated from the Oloth and other things, could be recognised only as devoid of sameness with the Cloth, and it could not be recognised as absolutely devoid of essence (existence), as even as thus excluded, it would be capable of efficient action.-(1750)
The following Texts show the Inconclusive character of the Opponent's Reason:
TEXTS (1751-1752).
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE capable (POTENT) FORM OF ONE ENTITY DOES NOT RESIDE IN OTHER ENTITIES,-BECAUSE THE EFFECT PRODUCED AND THE FORM OF THE APPREHENSION ARE FOUND TO BE DIFFERENT AND SO FORTH; THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE.—'THAT' A CERTAIN ENTITY IS NOT THE SAME AS THE OTHER', --THIS ALONE CAN FOLLOW FROM THE EXCLUSION (OR DIFFERENTIATION) THEREFROM-AND NOT THE FACT OF ITS BEING A NON-ENTITY DEVOID OF ALL PRO
PERTIES.(1751-1752)
COMMENTARY If the character of 'Entity', consisting of capacity for effective action, were something embracing all entities' collectively, then alone could the