________________
854
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XX,
WAY, EVEN THOUGH THERE WOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE IN 'PLURALITY', YET THERE WOULD BE RESTRICTION (OF ONLY SOME CAUSES BRINGING ABOUT SOME EYFECTS). Even WHEN THERE IS DIFFERENCE, IT IS ONLY A CERTAIN THING THAT WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE OF THE PARTICULAR EFFECT BY REASON OF ITS NATURE. IN THE CASE OF 'INCLUSIVENESS', HOW COULD THE ONE THING BE PRODUCTIVE AND NON-PRODUCTIVE OF THE SAME ONE THING - IF THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE DIFFERENCE MAY BE THERE ; BUT IS THAT DIFFERENCE FROM THAT THING ONLY ? THERE CAN BE NO DIFFERENCE APART FROM THE INCLUSIVE' (PRODUCTIVE CAUSE) ; AND THIS IS NON-PRODUCTIVE. IN FACT, THAT ALONE IS A REAL ENTITY WHICH IS CAPABLE OF EFFECTIVE ACTION; AND THIS ENTITY IS non-inclusive ; AND TROM WHAT IS inclusive, THE EFFECT IS NOT PRODUCED. IN FACT DIFFERENCE AND NONDIFFERENCE CAN BE NOT-IMAGINARY (REAL) ONLY IN RELATION TO THAT YORM OR NATURE IN REFERENCE TO WHICH THE MAN HAS RECOURSE TO ACTIVITY. OTHERWISE THE DIFFERENCE IS THERE BY ITS VERY 'NATURE', AND THE GENERAL CHARACTER ALSO IS THERE BEING DUE TO 'EXCLUSION. THE THING ITSELF IS NOT INCLUSIVE' (COMPREHENSIVE); AS IN THAT CASE THERE WOULD BE MOST INCONGRUOUS ACTIVITIES. (1764-1775)
COMMENTARY.
If mere differentiation from the character of the productive' is put forward without any qualification, as the Probans, then it cannot be 'admitted'. Because as a matter of fact it is not admitted that there is unqualified differentiation of the Eye, etc. from the character of being productive ; for the nature of the Eye, etc. also is regarded as productive ; why should then there be any such restriction as that the effect must always be produced by this Cause, not by another ? This Cause may produce it, and the other may also produce it; we see no incongruity in this. Under the circumstances, if the differentiation of the Eye, etc.' meant were without reservation of any kind, then there would be their differentiation from their own nature, which would mean that they are 'devoid of nature or character' (featureless). It is for this reason thnt there can be no differentia. tion of things from their own nature.
It then, the differentiation of the Eye, etc.' meant to be the Probans be that from other productive causes (of Cognition) than their own nature, then the Probans is 'inconclusive'; as in that onse what is differentiated from the other nature may not be of that nature, but it need not cease to be productive (of the cognition); because everything is productive, in its own form, not in the form of something else ; and from that nature of itself in which it is hold to be productive, it has not been differentiated ;-why then should it cease to be productive ? So that the Probans put up is found to be "Inconclusive