________________
144
TATTVASANGRAHA: OHAPTER VII.
TEXT (188).
AS REGARDS THE FIRST ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD, IT IS
OPEN TO THE CHARGE OF 'PROVING WHAT IS ALREADY ADMITTED (FUTILE); AS THE APPREHENSIBILITY OF YOUR COGNITION BY THE OMNISCIENT PERSON AND OTHERS IS ALREADY
ADMITTED (BY US).-(188)
COMMENTARY. The first argument,-i.e. the one set forth in Text 177-"My cognitions are apprehended by a Cogniser, etc.". This is futile; inasmuch as we already admit the fact that your cognitions are approhended by a Cogniser other than your body, etc., -in the person of the Omaniscient Being, as also by the Shravakas and Pralyēkabuddhas and other thought-readers.-(188)
As regards the instance per similarity cited in the same argumentlike the cognitions of other persons ".-it is one that is devoid of the Probandum' (ie, the charneter meant to be proved is not present in it).This is shown in the following Text
TEXT (189). WHENEVER CONSCIOUSNESS APPEARS, IT APPEARS IN ITS OWN FORM, INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY OTHER 'ILLUMINATOR', SO ALSO THE COGNITION OF OTHER PERSONS' HENCE YOUR INSTANCE
IS DEVOID OF THE PROBANDUM.-(189)
COMMENTARY. Inasuch as the cognition of other persons also appears in its own form, independently of any other illuminator',-this instance that you have cited is devoid of the Probandum,-i.e. devoid of the character that is sought to be proved. viz. that of being apprehended by a Cogniser distinct from the Body and the rest'.-(189)
It might be argued that it is not mere Cognition of another person that is meant to be the Corroborative Instance, but that particular cognition which appears in the form of the thing concerned".
The answer to this is supplied in the following Text:
TEXT (190) EVEN IF THE INSTANCE MEANT BE THAT COGNITION WHICH IS COGNISED AS TINGED BY THE FORM OF THE THING CONCERNED, -IT WOULD BE DOUBTFUL IN REGARD TO ANOTHER COGNITION.-(190)
COMMENTARY Even so, with reference to that cognition which does appear in its own form, without any cognition of another person', there would be doubts regarding the Probans cited, which, therefore, would remain inconclusive.
