________________
686
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XVIII.
to that object which forms the Corroborative Instance. These are the alternatives possible.-(1380)
The following Text points out objection against the first alternative :
TEXT (1381).
IF IT WERE UNDERSTOOD TO BE general, THEN, WHAT WOULD BE INDICATED WOULD BE TUB EXISTENCE OF THE PROBANS IN THE OBJECT WHERE THE PROBANDUM IS PRESENT ; AND IT WOULD NOT ACCOMPLISH WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED.-(1381)
COMMENTARY
The mere fact of its not existing apart from the Probandum, -withont the other fact of its existing wherever the Probandum is known to exist, does not make visibility -[which does not exist apart from the Probandum, Non-eternality; but is not present in all cases where Non-eternality is present]
does not prove the Non-eternality of Sound.--Hence the first alternative cannot be right.
It would not accomplish, etc. etc. that is, it could not establish the desired conclusion regarding the presence of the Probandum in the object. -(1381)
Question :-" Why so ?" Answer:
TEXTS (1382-1383).
FOR INSTANCE, VISIBILITY IS KNOWN TO BE INSEPARABLE (NOT EXISTING APART) FROM DESTRUCTION', IN A GENERAL WAY; AND YET IT (VISIBILITY) CANNOT PROVE IT (DESTRUCTION) IN SOUND.IF, THEN, IT BE SAID THAT ITS PRESENCE IN THE OBJECT IS MEANT,—THEN, IN THAT CASE, UNDER YOUR VIEW ALSO, THE PROBANS BECOMES 'THREE
FEATURED' AS BEFORE.-(1382-1383)
COMMENTARY. Tat -Visibility. Tasya'-of Destruction, Cannot prove it'-cannot indicate its presence,
