Tattva Sangraha Vol 1

SR No.: 007608
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1937
Total Pages: 753
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 42 MB

Page 457

462
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XV.
if other auxiliary causes are absent, and contrary circumstances become operative, the Jar cannot remain for ever.
This is answered in the words that cannot be so' -What has been urged cannot be rigiit ; because of the said components also there are components wherein their Inherence lies for ever : how then could there be any destruction or disruption ?
This is so not only in regard to the substances composed of those components; it is so in regard to Action, etc. also ; this is what is indicated by the partiele api
If it be admitted that there is destruction of the components of the object, then the Inherence also would have to be regarded as liable to destaruction.-(855-856)
"Why so ?" Answer:
TEXTS (857-858). WHEN THB Relative HAS CEASED TO EXIST, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE
Relation TO EXIST. WHEN THE conjunct OBJECT HAS BEEN DESTROYED, THE Conjunction CAN NO LONGER BE THDRE. AND JUST AS THE conjuncts ARB THERE WHILE THE Conjunction IS THERE,—SO ALSO THE Inherente SHOULD EXIST WHILE THE INHERENCE IS
THERE.—(857-858)
COMMENTARY He supports the same idea, in the words. When the Conjunct object,
etc. etc.
What is meant is that, on account of the Relative having ceased to exist, the Inherence comes to be non-eternal, just like the Conjunction which censes on the destruction of the Conjunct, Or the other alternative is that the relatives continue to exist, because of the Relation not having ceased; these relatives being like the two substances, the Conjunction between whom has not ceased.-If it were not so, then, in both cases, the Relation in question would lose its character.-(857-858)
The Opponent urges the following argument:
TEXT (859). “EVHN ON THE DESTRUCTION OF ONE RELATIVE, THE INHERENCE CONTINUES TO EXIST, BECAUSE THE OTHER RELATIVE IS STILL THERE.-NOR WOULD THE SAME BE THE CASE WITH CONJUNCTION ; BECAUSE THERE IS DIFFERENCE."
--(859)
COMMENTARY. What the Opponent means is as follows:- In the first Reason (adduced by the Buddhist), if what is meant is the destruction of all Relatives, then