________________
656
TATTVASANGRAHA CHAPTER XVII.
In support of the Reason Because their objects are different, the instance cited is as in the case of the cognitions of colour, etc.'; and in support of the Reason. Because it is non-conceptual', the instance cited is Kike the eye, etc. (1307)
The following Text points out the defects in the above reasoning :
TEXT (1308). THERE IS NO INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE CONCEPTUAL CONTENT AND THE SAID REASONS; NOR IS THERE DIFFERENCE IN THEIR OBJECTS; AS THE OBJECT APPREHENDED BY THE ONE IS THE SAME AS THAT APPREHENDED
BY THE OTHER.-(1308)
COMMENTARY. Both the Reasons adduced in the preceding Text) are Inconclusive'; es no incompatibility has been indicated between the Reasons and the contrary of the conclusion sought to be proved by them.
* Anayoh'-of the two Reasons.
Nor is there difference, elc. etc.; that is to say, even though the Conceptual Content is objective (has an object), yet the assertion that their objects are different' is 'inadmissible-(1308)
In reality however the Conceptual Content is not objective, it is without an object; hence the Reason cited is all the more inadmissible. This is shown in the following
TEXT (1309). IN REALITY, THE CONCEPTUAL CONTENT PROCEEDS WITHOUT ANY OBJECTIVE BASIS; IT HAS NO OBJECT AT ALL, WHICH COULD DIFFER FROM ANYTHING ELSH.-(1309)
COMMENTARY. The following Teart shows that the Corroborative Instance (cited by Bhāvivikta, in 1307 above)" as in the case of the cognition of Colour, etc.", is devoid of the Probandum (the character sought to be proved)
TEXT (1310). AMONG THE COGNITIONS OF COLOUR, SOUND, ETC., MUTUAL CAUSAL RELATION IS ACTUALLY PRESENT ; HENCE THE INSTANCE THAT HAS BEEN CITED IS ONE IN WHICH THE PROBANDUM
IS NOT KNOWN TO EXIST.—(1310)
COMMENTARY. -As among the Cognitions of Colour, Sound, etc., mental causal relation is actually present,-consisting in the fact of their following in the wake of one another.-(1310)
