________________
EXTERNAL WORLD.'
947
regress. But in no oase does it seem to be justifiable to regard Atoms as mere ideal (subjective) entities, for fear of having to regard them as with parts.--Even if they are mere subjective entities, it is necessary to postulate a cause for that Idea ; and thut which is the cause of that Idea would itself be the Atom.- If what you are seeking to prove is that Atoms do not exist at all, -even so, the Reason adduced- Because there is diversity of facings' -is inadmissible'. Because mere non-entities-like the Horns of the Ass-do not have the diverse facings towards the East and other directions.
-Nor can your argument be treated as a Reductio ad Absurdum ; because *the diversity of facings is not admitted by us".
The answer to this is given in the following
TEXTS (1993–1997).
AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING IS THE ATOM
WHICH HAS BEEN REGARDED BY OTHER PEOPLE AS DEVOID OF DIVISION INTO PARTS ; AND IT IS NOT IMPROBABLE THAT THIS MAY LEAD TO SOMETHING UNDESIRABLE. -WHEN THESE PEOPLE ACCEPT THE FACT OF THE PARTS THEMSELVES BEING'ATOMS-THEN THIS CERTAINLY INVOLVES A DEVIATION FROM THEIR OWN DOCTRINE. THE ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN SET FORTH (BY US) IS ONLY IN THE FORM OF A Reductio ad Absurdum ; THIS IS NOT OPEN TO THE CHARGE OF 'INADMISSIBILITY REGARDING ITS SUBSTRATUM.THE UNITY OF THE ATOM ALSO BECOMES DISCARDED BY THE CONJUNCTION, ETC. THAT THE OTHER PARTY ADMITS.-THUS UNDER ALL VIEWS, THE ATOM CANNOT BE REGARDED AS BEING ESSENTIALLY one. AND WHEN IT CANNOT BE one, IT CANNOT BE many EITHER. THUS, FOR ALL WISE PEOPLE, THE ATOM IS ONLY CAPABLE OF FORMING THE OBJECT OF THE DEFINITE IDEA THAT IT IS NON-EXISTENT, BECAUSE IT HAS THE NATURE OF NEITHER one NOR many,--LIKE THE Sky-lotus.-(1993-1997)
COMMENTARY.
The man who postulates the 'Atom 'must hold that it is a certain entity with a well-defined form. Otherwise, if there were an indefinite Infinite Regress, the form of the Atom' could not be determined ; and in that case our Opponent would himself have established the fact that it is something * indescribable', 'indefinite', 'indeterminate'; and thus he would have established what is desired by his Opponent. For these reasons, that same well-defined entity which you would prove to be the Atom', without having recourse to an Infinite Regress, if with regard to that same entity an investi. gation is carried on, why should there be an Infinite Regress? Specially so when the Infinite Regress would lead to the subversion of your doctrine. But that would not bring about a situation undesirable for your opponent. -And as this would be enough to prove what is desired by your opponent,