________________
866
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXI.
In view of this objection, Acharya Sahantabhadra has offered the following oxplanation :-What is called the activity of things is the potency of projecting the Result --not of producing it; the Past and other things, which are only partial causes, do not project the result ; it is only in the present state that the Result is projected (thrown out) by its cause. Nor can there be
projection of what has been already projected, as that would lead to an infinite regress. Thus there being no 'activity' possible in what is 'past, there can be no confusion in the character of these (Past, Future and Present).
(1791-1793)
The following Texts answer the above arguments of the Realist Buddhist):
TEXTS (1791–1796).
THESE PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THIS ACTIVITY' IS EITHER
DIFFERENT FROM, OR THE SAME AS, THE OBJECT CONCERNED; AS THERE CAN BE NO OTHER WAY IN WHICH IT CAN REALLY EXIST. IF IT IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THE OBJECT, THEN THE PAST AND FUTURE STATES OF PRESENT THINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE REGARDED AS TORMLESS,--BECAUSE THEY ARE 'CAUSES' AND ARE "EMBELLISHED', AND SO FORTH, -LIKE THE ACTIVITY. OTHERWISE, THE THINGS WOULD BE EVERLASTING: AS THE FORM WOULD BE THERE ALL THE TIME ; AND APART FROM THIS, THERE IS NO OTHER CHARACTERISTIC OF THE 'EVERLASTING: -(1794-1796)
COMMENTARY.
The said Activity will have to be regarded by these people either as different from, or the same as, the Entity; as there can be nothing apart from both difference' and 'non difference', as these are mutually exclusive; the affirmation of one being invariably concomitant with the denial of the other ; and there is no other way in which the thing can exist.
If then the Activity is something different from the Entity, then the Past and Future states of Present things would have to be regarded as 'formless, --because of their being causes and being embellished,like the Activity. The term and so forth is meant to include being an entity and so forth.Otherwise—that is, if, they were not formless in the Past and in the Future, then, all embellished' things would have to be regarded as eternal; as the
form (or Nature) would be always there ; and the eternality of a thing is nothing more than being always there; as declared in the following words * The learned men regard that Form as eternal which is never destroyed ', -- (1794-1796)
The following might be urged "If eternality is a potency,then how can the two Reasons being cause' and being embellished'-escape from being not incompatible with the contrary of the Probandum ? "
This is answered in the following