________________
1274
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXV.
TEXTS (2817-2818).
IF THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT, THEN THE SAID CAPACITY (POTENCY) OP ALL TIUNGS CANNOT BR NON-DIFFERENT FROM THEMSELVES, AS EXPLAINED BEFORE IN FACT, CAPACITY IS THE NAME GIVEN TO THAT FORM OF THE THING (CAUSE) WHICH IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING THE DESIRED EFFECT ; IF THEN, THAT FORM WERE NOT OF THE NATURE OF A POSITIVE entity, THEN THE SAID THING COULD NOT BE AN active agent (EFFICIENT CAUSR).
(2817-2818)
COMMENTARY.
Now what is it that is meant hy the term 'inherent' (belonging to it by its vory nature) ?-(a) Does it mean that it is inherent' in the sepse that being eternal, it has no cause? Or (6) that it is inherent' in the sense that, even though it is not-eternal, it appears at the same time that the Cognitions have their essence (existence) brought about by their causes - and not that it is imposed upon them subsequently by other causes ? These are the two alternative views possible.
Now, the first of these (that it has no cause] is not acceptable; because (1) would such a capacity' be something different from the Cognition to which it belongs)? Or (2) non-different from it? Or (3) neither different nor non-different? Or (4) both different and non-different ?—These four alternatives are possible.
Of these the first (that the Capacity is something different] cannot be accepted. Because, there can be no connection between them, and also because in that case, things could never be active agents, etc. etc.-as it has been explained several times, when the conclusion arrived was that in the case of all things, their capacity (Potency) is not anything different from the things themselves.
This is what is pointed out in the words-' In fact Capacity is the name, etc. etc. The Capacity' of the nature of things consists in its efficiency to produce its effect; and if this "nature were not of the nature of a positive entity, then that entity could not be an active agent; and thus (not being capable of effective action) it would become a 'non-entity':-(2817-2818)
If it is meant that the Capacity is not different (from the thing, the Pramana),—then, it could not be 'natural', 'inherent'. Because things, as coming into existence through the efficiency of their causes, must be noneternal; so that the Capacity also, if non-different from the thing, would have to be regarded as non-eternal, on account of its coming into existence through the efficiency of its cause. Otherwise, not sharing the same fate, the two could not be non-different.
This is what is pointed out in the following: -
