How, moreover, is the conjunction of one atom with another to be imagined?  Is it to be total interpenetration of the two or partial conjunction?  If the former, then no increase of bulk could take place, and consequently atomic size only would exist; moreover, it would be contrary to what is observed, as we see that conjunction takes place between substances having parts (prade/s/a).  If the latter, it would follow that the atoms are composed of parts.—­Let then the atoms be imagined to consist of parts.—­If so, imagined things being unreal, the conjunction also of the atoms would be unreal and thus could not be the non-inherent cause of real things.  And without non-inherent causes effected substances such as binary compounds, &c. could not originate.  And just as at the time of the first creation motion of the atoms leading to their conjunction could not take place, there being no cause of such motion; thus at the time of a general pralaya also no action could take place leading to their separation, since for that occurrence also no definite seen cause could be alleged.  Nor could the unseen principle be adduced as the cause, since its purport is to effect enjoyment (of reward and punishment on the part of the soul), not to bring about the pralaya.  There being then no possibility of action to effect either the conjunction or the separation of the atoms, neither conjunction nor separation would actually take place, and hence neither creation nor pralaya of the world.—­For these reasons the doctrine of the atoms being the cause of the world must be rejected.

13.  And because in consequence of samavaya being admitted a regressus in infinitum results from parity of reasoning.

You (the Vai/s/eshika) admit that a binary compound which originates from two atoms, while absolutely different from them, is connected with them by the relation of inherence; but on that assumption the doctrine of the atoms being the general cause cannot be established, ’because parity involves here a retrogressus ad infinitum.’  For just as a binary compound which is absolutely different from the two constituent atoms is connected with them by means of the relation of inherence (samavaya), so the relation of inherence itself being absolutely different from the two things which it connects, requires another relation of inherence to connect it with them, there being absolute difference in both cases.  For this second relation of inherence again, a third relation of inherence would have to be assumed and so on ad infinitum.—­But—­the Vai/s/eshika is supposed to reply—­we are conscious of the so-called samavaya relation as eternally connected with the things between which it exists, not as either non-connected with them or as depending on another connexion; we are therefore not obliged to assume another connexion, and again another, and so on, and thus to allow ourselves to be driven into a regressus in infinitum.—­Your defence is unavailing, we reply, for it would involve the admission