________________
1208
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXTS (2640-2641).
IP IT IS HELD THAT-"THE CONNECTION (OR RELATIONSHIP) IS ONLY A KIND OF POTENCY, AND THERE CAN BE NO DIVERSITY IN POTENCY", -THEN THE POTENCY OF THE WORD AND ITS MEANING WOULD BE ONE AND THE SAME, AS THERE WOULD BE NO DISTINCTION-EVEN IF THERE WERE SOME DISTINCTION, THERE COULD BE NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE POTENCY AND THOSE TWo.-IF IT WERE SOMETHING PRODUCED, THEN IT COULD NOT BE ETERNAL; AND THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING,
(2640-2641)
COMMENTARY.
. There is no other, etc. etc. There being objections-as explained before-to the Potency being or not being of the nature of both.-(26402641)
It has been argued by the Mināmsaka, under Text 2264, that" At the time that the Connection is asserted, etc. etc.".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXTS (2642-2648).
AT THE TIME OF THE ASSERTION OF THE CONNECTION, WHEN THE WORD
'cow' IS UTTERED, SOME PEOPLE, WHO ARE COGNISANT OF THE Cox. NECTION, COMPREHEND ITS MEANING, --WHILE OTHERS DO NOT AND THE REASON FOR THIS LIES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CONNECTION IN THE FORM AND MANNER IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN MADE KNOWN. UNDER YOUR VIEW OF THE CONNECTION', HOWEVER, ALL MEX SHOULD COMPREHEND THE MEANING ; BECAUSE ACCORDING TO YOU, THE CONNECTION CONSISTS OF Potency ONLY, AND POTENCY IS ETERNAL; SO THAT IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING ABOUT THE COGNITION OF THE MEANING AT ALL TIMES; OR, OTHERWISE, IT SHOULD NOT BE FREE FROM LIMITATIONS.-IF BEING ETERNAL, IT WERE FREE FROM LIMITATIONS,-WHY SHOULD NOT ALL MEN COMPREHEND THE MEANING OF THE WORD ?-IT, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT HAS LIMITATIONS, WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON FOR SUCH LIMITATION, WHEN IT IS IN THE NATURE OF THE POTENOY ITSELF? A MAN WHO HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONVENTION (BEARING ON THE WORD), OR WHEN HE HAS FORGOTTEN IT, -POES THE COGNITION OF THE MEANING APPEAR IN THE SAME ONE MAN? BECAUSE THE POTENCY RESTRICTED TO THE PRODUCTION OF THAT COGNITION IS THERE
