( 74 ) beeomes quite useless so for as those purposes are con- cerned. It is not sublated by any subsequent valid ex perience but lasts for several days, months, an. years. What is there to warrant the attribution of unreality to the evolved things ? One and the same substance takes very many shapes in succession or in its several parts. It is true the shapes are transitory and passing events. But to say this is not the same as to say they are faise or unreal, Uddalaka's statement that the articles evo lved from the mud are real only as mud, does not and cannot mean that the evolved things are unreal. This is an example given for proving the possibility of the previous statement regarding Adesa, “‘to know whom is to know all. To suit and serve this purpose the exanmple must be one wellknown and fully familiar to Svetaketu. He had seen that the heap of mud that was in the morning in the pot-maker's house was turned in the afternoon into several and dinerent ob:ects. He knew that since all these articles were only those evolv ed from the heap of the mud that was seen in the morning, his comprehension of the mud in the morning included in its contents the substance, though not the shape, of every one of the articles seen in the afternoon. So the exampl. helped Svetaketu in conceiving the nature of Adesa described by his father. He thought his father told him that just as the comprehension of the mud is the comprehen sion of all articles made of it, so the comprehenion of Adesa could well be the comprehension of all things in the world. This meant that just as the mud is the mate
