184
VADAVALi
The Dvaitin points ont that the Advaitin's definition of finitude means sublatability. If sublatability is the probans there is the defect of non-difference of the probans and the probandum. The probandum illusoriness is defined as the sublatable. Hence the defect. The Dvaitin in criticising temporal finitude which is the second alternative, points out the same defect as in the case of spatial finitude. The defect is contradiction. Then the question as to what exactly is the pramaQa that establishes temporal:finitude in Akas'a and Time is taken up. It cannot be the probans " intertness ". The probans intertness is already refuted. If according to Advaita the temporal finitude present in objects like pot are due to inertness, the Dvaitin objects to it and attributes the temporal finitude therein to an adjunct i.e. "being an effect". The pervasion is not invariable. The probans is inconstant in respect of nescience. Nescience is not an effect but is inert. Hence the inconstancy. If nescience be said to be an effect there is self-contradiction. Throughout Advaita literature nescience is spoken of as beginningless. There is no cause for it; so it cannot be an effect. The term " temporal finitude " is resolved to mean three things: (1) being non-eternal, (2) having a beginning, (3) not being in all three times. If we accept the first alternative there is the inconstancy of the probans, " inertness " in respect of mokl',!a. Mokl',!a is eternal. So there is the non-existence of the probandum " being non-eternal ". There is the probans, " inertness " there. Hence the defect. The description of mok~a as the fifth form is not without its significance. The inconstancy of the probans must be pointed out outside the subject. In order to secure the exclusion from the subject, mokeya is defined as the fifth. (1) It is not real, (2) nor is unreal, (3) nor is it real and unreal because 9Uch'a concept violates the law of contradiction (4) nor is it indete>rminable. Exclusion from the indeterm,inable results from mok~a=destruction of avidya, where avidya itself ii indeterminable. Mention of t'he
