________________
944
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIII.
the nature of one or several [therefore they must be non-existent] is doubtful and hence inadmissible':--
TEXT (1989).
"THE EXISTENCE OF ATOMS MAY NOT BE PROVED. THERE MAY BE DOUBT REGARDING THEM. BUT HOW COULD INTELLIGENT PRRSONS HAVE THE CERTAINTY THAT ATOMS DO NOT
EXIST AT ALL?"-(1989)
COMMENTARY.
The following texts supply the answer to this
TEXTS (1990–1992).
IN EVERY OBJECT, IF THE FORM OF THE ATOM AT THE CENTRE, WHICH IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH, OR DISTINCT FROM, OR LYING CONTIGUOUSLY
WITH, THE FRONT PART OF ANOTHER ATOM, IS REGARDED AS ALSO FACING A THIRD ATOM-THEN, IN THAT CASE, THERN WOULD BE NO aggregation IN THE FORM OF THE HILL AND OTHER THINGS. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE IDEA IS THAT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THE OTHER ATOM IS ANOTHER TORM OF THE FIRST ATOM, THEN, IN THAT CASE, HOW COULD SUCH AN ATOM
BE one -(1990-1992)
COMMENTARY.
The argument may be formulated as follows That which is devoid of the form of one or many is fit for being regarded as non-existent, as the * sky-lotus '--the Atoms postulated by the other party are devoid of the form of one or many ;-hence this is a Reason based upon the nature of
things.
It cannot be said that the Reason here adduced is 'inadmissible': because that the Atom is one cannot be admitted ; because in the Hill and other things which are aggregates of Atoms, there is diversity of facings towards various directions.
This diversity of facings in various directions' must be present in the Atoms also, otherwise it could not be possible in the aggregates of Atoms, like the Hill and other things this is what is set forth in the words If the assumption is, etc. etc.'.
Some people hold that in every Object, the Atoms are in close conjunction with one another others hold that they remain there separate from each other, always, without touching one another ;-others again hold that there is