________________
874
TATTVASANGRAHA: OHAPTER XXI.
Even granting the assumption that the States are non-different from the Entity,--the objection based upon the attributing to them of mutually contradictory properties still remains unanswered. For instance, when the Entity is in the 'middle' (Present) state,is it active in its own form? Or in the form of something else ?
If it is active in its own form, then, as that same form would be there in the Past and Future states also,-how could this form of the active entity become active and inactive ?
If it is active in the form of something else, then it ceases to be active ; and hence becomes a non-entity.
Thus it is clear that it is not right to say that the same form is there in the Past and Future states also.
If then there is some other form (of the Entity) in these States, then, under this view, there would be no room for the objection that it involves the confusion and comingling in the same thing of mutually contradictory properties of Activity and Inactivity, because the Entity would not be the same. But the other difficulty will remain, that) if the Entity, Fire, which is capable of such action as Burning and Cooking, comes into existence after having been non-existent, and having come into existence, it disappears, this is incompatible with the doctrine of the permanent existence of the Entity; because there is no continuity of existence.-(1816-1820)
The following might be urged-" It is true that the Entity, not being capable of action before it becomes capable of action, and having become capable of action, it ceases to be so; but even so, in these Past and Future states also the Entity is there all the same, though not capable of action ; so that our theory is not incompatible with the idea of the Entity being there at all times".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (1821). AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT ENTITY ALONE IS REAL WHICH IS capable of action ; HENCE FROM THAT WHICH IS NOT SO IN THE TWO STATES,
-NO EFFECT CAN PROCEED.-(1821)
COMMENTARY.
"That alone '—which is capable of action. * In the two states in the Past and Future states. That which is not so i.e. not capable of action.-(1821)
The following might be urged :-"In the case of such 'Past' entities as the Partial (or divided) cause', capacity for action is actually held to be there ; hence the conclusion that 'no effect can be produced' cannot be admitted".
The answer to this is as follows: