The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies v2.c15.s19.3

v2.c15.s19.3

Thakur, Mahendra Kumar, and Umesh Miśra report other views attributed to Aviddhakarṇa. (1) Abhayadeva reports him as agreeing with Uddyotakara’s arguments refuting momentariness on the basis of pervasion. (2) He is widely quoted as arguing for the existence of God by two arguments. (a) An object, perceptible by two sense organs, or not perceptible at all, is produced by a conscious cause, because it possesses an arrangement among its parts, like pot, etc., or atoms, etc., respectively. (b) The material causes (*upādāna*) of an organism are dependent upon an intelligent Being, because they possess color, etc., like threads, etc.⁹ (3) The destruction of an object occurs a moment after the thing exists, not simultaneously with its existence. Therefore it must have a distinct cause. (4) He agrees with Bhāvivikta and Uddyotakara that a substance can be perceived without any qualities. (5) He refutes someone’s thesis that aggregation and continuity are *anirvacanīya*. (6) He distinguishes comparison from verbal testimony on the ground that the former gives us knowledge of objects, the latter of the relation of a name with an object. (7) Since the Buddhists deny the existence of selves, there is no possibility of their knowing invariable concomitance (*avinābhāva*). (8) Atoms must be eternal, because it is impossible to suppose that they have a creator. This last is impossible because no valid instrument can give us knowledge of such a creator, and thus the creator is unreal, like a hare’s horn.