________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DOOTRINE OF SELF-SUFFICIENT VALIDITY'. 1277
* The effects producible, etc. etc. '- Tal' stands for the Pramūnas; the effects of these by themselves, etc. etc.
The view that "the Potency may be both (different and non-different)" cannot be right, because they are mutually contradictory and also because it would be open to all the objections that have been urged against Difference as also those urged against Non-difference.
Nor can the view that "it is neither different nor non-different” be accepted. Because between two mutually exclusive things, the affirmation of one is inseparable from the denial of the other ; hence it can never be right to deny it at the very time that it is affirmed ; as the affirmation and denial of the same thing involves an incongruity. This objection is quite clear ; hence it has not been stated in the Text.-(2824)
The Author now admits the last three alternative views (for the sake of argument), and then points ont objections against them :
TEXT (2825). WHETHER THE capacity BE different or both (DIFFERENT AND NONDIFFERENT), THE Pramāna ITSELF MUST BE ETERNAL-BEING
ASSOCIATED WITH THE ETERNAL capacity.—(2825)
COMMENTARY
Prthaktunm'i.e. the view that the Capacity is different from the Cognition.--Ubhaymakam', 'Both';-this is by way of illustration; it should be taken as including the view that it is neither different nor nondifferent':--Or this last also may be taken as mentioned in the same term *ubhayütmaka'; as this also consists of both-i.e. the denial of both.
Under all these three views, the Cognition must be eternal, by reason of its being related to the Capacity, which is eternal.—(2825)
"How so?”
Question Answer
TEXT (2826).
IF THAT WERE NOT SO, THEN THE CAPACITY COULD NOT BE ETERNAL; AS IT WOULD NOT CONTINUE IN THE SAME FORM;-BEING AT TIMES ASSOCIATED WITH THE COGNITION, AND NOT-ASSOCIATED
WITH IT AT OTHERS.-(2826)
COMMENTARY. If that were not so '-i.c. if the Cognition associated with the Capacity woro not-eternal,-thon, the Capacity itself could not be oternal'.
“Why?"
Because it would not continue in the same form '-i.e. because there would not be continuance of the samo form.
