________________
870
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXI.
one another by reason of their being associated with mutually divergent characters, -and hence it is that while some are 'resistant', others are nonresistant'; as is found in the case of Sensation', etc.; but it is not that those same are 'non-resistant' which are resistant'; and this for the same reason that there is no comprehensive entity in the form of Category", by virtue of which the qualities of 'Resistance', etc. could be occasional. In fact, what happens is that the Entity itself, which is impartite, and is ' excluded from like and unlike things ',-is produced in that way. For these reasons it is not right that any property, other than the form of the Entity itself, should distinguish any single Entity.-(1804-1805)
Question "How then is it that there is such an expression as Rūpasya sapratighatvan', 'Resistance of the Form', where the two appear as different from one another, if a property non-different from a thing cannot serve to distinguish it?"
Answer:
TEXT (1806).
IT IS THE ENTITY ITSELF, WHEN IT DOES NOT INDICATE DIFFERENCE FROM OTHER THINGS, THAT IS SPOKEN OF BY THE WORDS ' IT IS OF THE FORM '; JUST AS 'DISPOSITION 'IS SPOKEN
OF AS OF THE MIND', -(1806)
COMMENTARY.
* When it does not, etc. etc.' ;-that is, when it ignores the difference from other things.
Spoken of as, etc.'-i.e. as if it were something different. It is of the form, etc. It'stands for Resistance By the words ',-i.e. by the expression Resistance of the Form'. An example is cited- As Disposition, etc. etc..
The term 'api cha' should be understood in the cumulative sense. (1806)
The same writer (Bhadanta-Sahantabhadra) has argued as follows: "Activity is not something different from the Entity, as it is not found to have any nature apart from that.-Nor is it the Entity only; because even though it forms its very nature, yet it is non-existent at times.-Nor is it a particular (form of it), as the Activity has had no previous existence. In fact, the 'Activity' is like the Chain' (Series): the consecutive birth of the Entity is called the Chain' (or Series),-and yet it is not something different from the Entity, as it is always apprehended as not-separate from it; nor is it the Entity only, as in that case even a single 'Moment' would have to be regarded as the Chain';-and yet with all this, it cannot be said that the Chain does not exist; because its effects are found to exist.-{Similar is the case with 'Activity 'l-All this has been thus asserted— It is admitted