________________
EXAMINATION OF SYĀDVĀDA' (JAINA DOCTRINE).
849
thing differentiated from others be said to be featureless (non-existent),-- the entity' being something that is characterised by capacity for effective action. As a matter of fact however, the capable (or potent) form of one entity-the Blue for instance-cannot subsist in other things,-- like the white and the rest ; as has been explained under Text 1740.
Question :-“Why cannot it subsist in other things ?"
Answer:-Because the effect produced is different, and the form of Apprehension (Idea) is different. The term Upalambha' here stands for Apprehension, i.e. Cognition ; and nirbhāsa for the form of that Cognition (i.e. the Idea).
The phrase "and so forthstands for diversities of birth, of existence, of destruction, etc.
For these reasons all that'non-contact differentiation-from another entity can prove is only that 'the entity in question is not the same as this latter'; it cannot prove it to be devoid of properties, a mere non-entity.
“Why?"
Because the capacity for effective action, which constitutes the essence of Entity', is present in it.-(1751-1752)
Objection:-“If there is absolute difference among entities, how can there be such all-embracing notions as this is entity', 'this is entity' (in regard to all things) ?-how too can there be any difference between the Entity and the sky-flower', etc.- if there were no similarity!" Answers
TEXTS (1753-1754).
THE CONCEPTION BEING THERE THAT THAT ALSO IS CAPABLE OF EFFECTIVE
ACTION, THERE WOULD BE THIS IDEA THAT IT IS AN entity':THUS THERE WOULD BE SUBJECTIVE SIMILARITY CONSISTING IN DIFFERENTIATION FROM WHAT IS INCAPABLE'. THUS, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE, THERE IS A SUBJECTIVE similarity; AND THUS AN 'ENTITY' BEING EQUAL' TO OTHER ENTITIES, BECOMES DISTINGUISHED FROM THE SKY.
FLOWER':-(1753-1754)
COMMENTARY. Differentiation from the Incapable'; the incapables' meant are such non-entities as the son of the Barren Woman', -there is differentiation' from these, i.e. the entity is not the same as these.
Because the subjective Similarity is there, therefore it cannot be admitted that "If an entity were not equal to other entities, it would not differ from the sky-flower"-as asserted by the Opponent under Text (1710).
In the following Texts, the Author sets forth the objections urged by Sumati (against the Buddhist point of view) :