________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRAIKĀLYA'.
869
Then again, if the Activity itself is regarded as future, without another Activity, then it should not be said that the states are determined by Activity ; as that would not be true; inasmuch as in the case of Activity itself its "future' and other states are determined on the basis of its own existence; and in the same manner the "future' and other states of Entities also could be determined on the basis of their own existence.
In order to avoid this objection it might be held that, in the case of Activity also, there would be another Activity, which would be the determining factor.-But in that case also the same question-as to its being different or non-different from the former Activity, would arise. And this would be open to the further defect that it would involve an infinite regress. (1802-1803)
It has been pointed out that if the Activity is non-different from the Entity, it must be there at all times, like the form or nature of the Entity itself.--Bhadanta-Sahantabhadra has offered an answer to that, which is anticipated and answered in the following
TEXTS (1804-1805).
" PROPERTIES DISTINCT FROM THE ENTITY HAVE ALSO BEEN FOUND TO
QUALIFY IT ; FOR INSTANCE, THE QUALITY OF RESISTANCE"", IF THIS IS URGED, THIS CANNOT HELP THE MATTER UNDER DISCUSSION; SUCH CHARACTERS AS THAT OF RESISTANCE AND THE LIKE ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ENTITY AT ALL TIMES; THEY HAVE BEEN REGARDED AS OCCASIONAL; BECAUSE THE ENTITY ITSELF IS PRODUCED IN THAT WAY.
-(1804-1805)
COMMENTARY.
* As a matter of fact, Properties distinct from the Entity and yet qualifying it have been found; for example, the character of Resistance and the like found in Earth and other things. These things-Earth, etc.as Categories are all the same; and yet these are found to be resistant and non-resistant', 'similar' and 'dissimilar ', -thus being qualified by properties which are distinct from the form of the things themselves. In the same manner, the Entity could be qualified by Activity, which may be different from the Entity itself."
This explanation will not help the present topic. The topio under con. sideration is this-If the Activity is regarded as non-different from the Thing,—then there can be no distinction in the Activity which, being of the same nature as the Entity, could not serve to determine the distinction among the states (as 'Past', etc.).--As regards Earth and the other things (that have been cited by Bhadanta-Sahantabhadra),—they are distinct from