________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRAIKĀLYA'.
871
that there are effects of the Chain,--and yet the Chain, as such, is nowhere existent (by itself, apart from the Entity); similar should be understood to be the case with Activity as bringing about the states'."
The answer to this is as follows :
TEXTS (1807-1809).
IF THE 'ACTIVITY' IS DESCRIBED AS ' NEITHER SAME NOR DIFFERENT', LIKE THE CHAIN', ETC., THEN IT BECOMES PURELY ILLUSORY'; AND THUS BEING PURELY IMAGINARY, LIKE THE CHAIN', IT COULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE IN REGARD TO ANY EFFECT ; AS IT IS ONLY A REAL ENTITY THAT IS CAPABLE OF EFFECTIVE ACTION. THUS THEN, AS THE PRESENCE OF THE ACTIVITY 'WOULD NOT BE REAL, ANY DETERMINING OF THE STATES BASED UPON THAT ACTIVITY' COULD NOT BE real.
(1807-1809)
COMMENTARY.
Like the Chain, etc.'--the etc.' is meant to include the * Aggregate and such things.
The Chain' is incapable of being spoken of as either different or non-different from the links of the chain; hence, like the 'Pudgala' (Body) it is featureless, devoid of form in the same way the 'Activity'in question also would be featureless ;-when there is some feature (or form), it is necessary that it should be either different or non-different. Thus then, the Activity in question being purely imaginary, it could not serve any useful purpose in the bringing about of any effect; just like the Chain'. The Chain', which is purely a creature of fancy, does not serve any useful purpose towards any effect, because it is featureless; and the appearance of an effect is inseparably connected with some feature (or character). Hence it is only an entity, which has the form of a 'link in the chain' that is capable of effective action,
-not the imaginary Chain'. From this it follows that the 'Activity' in question having a purely imaginary existence, there can be no real presence of it, either before or after anything, and consequently any notions of the distinct 'states' determined upon the basis of such Activity must also be imaginary, not real.-(1807-1809)
Says the other party-"It may be that the Activity has a purely imaginary existence; and hence the distinction of the states based thereupon may also be only imaginary:-what is the harm in that?"-This is the view taken up in the following