________________
766
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XIX.
TEXT (1541).
* THE SIMILARITY RESIDING IN THE Cow CANNOT SERVE AS THE PROBANS, AS IT FORMS A PART OF THE PROPOSITION ITSELF. Tre Gavaya ALSO CANNOT SERVE AS THE PROBANS INDICATIVE OF THE Cow, AS IT HAS NO CONNECTION WITH
THE Cow."-(1541)
COMMENTARY.
Inasmuch as Similarity is the object Inferred, it cannot serve as the Probans.
"In that case, the Gavaya would be the Probans".
Here also, the Gavaya cannot serve as the Probans, for want of coordination.-(1541)
Says the Opponent-Then Analogical Cognition may not be a valid form of cognition at all.
Answer:
TEXT (1542).
“THE COGNITION IN QUESTION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS not A FORM OF RIGHT COGNITION; BECAUSE IT MAKES KNOWN WHAT IS NOT ALREADY KNOWN ; FOR INSTANCE, BEFORE THE PERCEPTION OF THE Gavaya, ITS SIMILARITY. (IN THE Cow) HAS NOT BEEN APPREHENDED
AT ALL."-(1542)
COMMENTARY
That is, before the perception of the Gavaya, there has been no apprehension of the Cow as qualified by similarity to the Gavaya ; consequently, as Analogical Cognition brings about the cognition of the Cow as qualified by similarity to the Gavaya, which has not been known previously, it is only right that it should be regarded as a valid Means of Cognition.-(1542)
The above (Mimämsaka) view of Analogical Cognition is refuted in the following Texts :
