Footnote 368:[(return)]
Our Vaiseshika-sûtras read 'pratishedhabhâvah;' but as all MSS. of Sa@nkara have 'pratishedhâbhâvah' I have kept the latter reading and translated according to Ânandagiri's explanation: Kâryam anityam iti kârye vireshato nityatvanishedho na syâd yadi kâraneszpy anityatvam atozsnûnâm kâranânâm nityateti sûtrârthah.
Footnote 369:[(return)]
Because they also are not perceptible; the ternary aggregates, the so-called trasarenus, constituting the minima perceptibilia.
Footnote 370:[(return)]
As they have no cause which could either be disintegrated or destroyed.
Footnote 371:[(return)]
This according to the Vedânta view. If atoms existed they might have originated from avidyâ by a mere parinâma and might again be dissolved into avidyâ, without either disintegration or destruction of their cause taking place.
Footnote 372:[(return)]
The Sâ@nkhyas looking on everything (except the soul) as being the pradhâna in various forms.—There is no need of assuming with Govindânanda that by the Sâ@nkhya of the text we have to understand the Vedânta.
Footnote 373:[(return)]
Yayor dvayor madhya ekam avinasyad aparâsritamvâvatishthate tâv ayutasiddhau yathâvayavâvayavinau.
Footnote 374:[(return)]
The connexion of cause and effect is of course samavâya.
Footnote 375:[(return)]
If the effect can exist before having entered into connexion with the cause, the subsequent connexion of the two is no longer samavâya but samyoga; and that contradicts a fundamental Vaiseshika principle.
Footnote 376:[(return)]
This clause replies to the objection that only those connexions which have been produced by previous motion are to be considered conjunctions.
Footnote 377:[(return)]
A clause meant to preclude the assumption that the permanent existence of the things connected involves the permanent existence of the connexion.