Tattva Sangraha Vol 2

SR No.: 007609
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1939
Total Pages: 887
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 84 MB

Page 713

1438
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
The answer to this is Nor have several divergent, etc. etc. This has to be construed with 'na drutal, changed from the drstam', of the previous clause. As a matter of fact, several Cognitions in the same Chain' of a Cognition have never been found to appear.
[Several lines of the text are missing here.]
[The Buddhist's answer to the Mimamsaka's arguments against the Omniscient Person,- embodied in Tests 3128-3261.)
TEXTS (3262-3263). THUS HAVE THE Mimāmsakas ARGUED, BEING FIRM BELIEVERS IN THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY OF THE VEDA.-BUT WE HAVE ALREADY PROVED IN DETAIL THAT THE VEDA IS THE WORK OF A PERSON. HENCE THE CONCLUSION IS IRRESISTIBLE THAT THERE IS A PERSON WHO HAS THE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THINGS ; AND NO ONE CAN KNOW THINGS BY MEANS OF THE ETERNAL WORD, WHICH IS AN IMPOSSI
BILITY.-(3262-3263)
COMMENTARY. Thus the conclusion is that there is a Person who perceives things directly by Himself, not through the Eternal Word '; because the 'Eternal Word ' is an impossibility.
The 'ava' after drasta should be construed after säksät'-(3262. 3263)
It may be possible to have the Eternal Word '; even so, however, it cannot be right to accept it as a means of knowing supersensuous things.This is what is pointed out in the following:
TEXT (3264). THE ETERNAL WORD CAN NEVER HAVE THE CAPACITY TO BRING ABOUT
THE COGNITION OF ITS OWN MEANING BECAUSE THERE IS INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN SUCCESSION' AND 'SIMUL
TANEITY':-(3264)
COMMENTARY. Its own meaning what is expressed by the word.-Or, sva' (in svärtha ') may stand for the self', the nature, of the Word and 'artha' for what is expressed by it ; so the compoundsvärthajtana' would mean 'the Cognition of the Word itself and its meaning'.
For the bringing about of such cognition, the capacity of the 'Eternal Word ' could be either inherent in itself, or due to other contributory causes. It cannot be inherent in it; because in the matter of an Eternal Thing bringing about its effect, there is incompatibility between succession and simultaneity;