Tattva Sangraha Vol 1

SR No.: 007608
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1937
Total Pages: 753
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 42 MB

Page 94

DOCTRINE OF GOD.
99
The same writer (Prashastamali) has adduced the following further argument:"All the Seven Worlds must have been created by the intelli. gence of a single Being,-because they are all included under one 'Entity, - just like the several rooms of a House; we find that all the rooms of a House are built by the intelligence of a single architect; in the same way all the seven worlds are included under the one universe ; hence it is concluded that these must be the creation of the Intelligence of a single Creator; and the one Being by whoso intelligence all these have been created is the Blessed Lord, the one Architect of the whole universe".
The Probans of this reasoning is unproven (not admitted); there is no such thing as a single universe' or a single louso '; such names have been given to certain things only for the purpose of simplifying business. transactions.-For this same reason the Corroborative Instance that has been cited is devoid of the Probans. Further, as a matter of fact, the several rooms in a house are actually found to be built by several architects (and masons); hence the Probans is 'inconclusive (Doubtful) also.
Objections to other Theistic arguments also may be set forth in the aforesaid manner.-(92)
It has been argued (under Text 55) that "The theory under disputo must be perceptible to someone, etc. etc."
The answer to this is provided by the following Text :
TEXT (93).
IN FACT, THE REASON ADDUCED TOR PROVING THE OMNISCIENT PERSON
IS EFFECTIVE ONLY AGAINST THE FOLLOWERS OF JAIMINI.-(93)
COMMENTARY.
If what you seek to prove is only an Omniscient Being in general, then your proofs have no force against us ; as it proves what is already admitted by us. In fact, it is effective only against the followers of Jaimini who deny the Omniscient Being' entirely.
If however what you seek to prove is the "omniscient' God, then as there can be no Invariable Concomitance, the Reason is inconclusive, and the Corroborative Instance is devoid of the Probandum. For all these reasons, your arguments are not effective against us. Such is the meaning of the Text.
The Theist, in his arguments, has made use of such qualifications for the Subject of his argument as appearing in various forms'. But there is no use for such an epithet; it is only a loud enunciation of your views for the purpose of deluding other people. For instance, if, in the absence of such epithets for the Subject, the Probans is free from the defects of being * uinproven' and the like, then that alone suffices for proving the desired con. clusion on the other hand, if the Reason is defective by reason of being