________________
694
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XVIII,
that case, the Probans would become three-featured', as the Corroborative Instance would be provided by such well-known cases as that of Smoke and Fire.-(1399)
The following Text supplies the answer to the argument stated (by Patras ūmin, in Text 1374) regarding the Eyes having the peculiar potency for bringing about the effect in the shape of Colour-pereoption",
TEXT (1400).
AS A MATTER OP FACT, THE VERY eristence OF THE EYE, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT-IS STILL UNCERTAIN; AND THE PROYING OF THIS (EXISTENCE) CANNOT BE BIGHT.-AS IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE DEFECTS OF INADMISSIBILITY
AND THE REST.-(1400)
COMMENTARY.
There is a stop after 'na' (in the second line).
Inadmissibility and the rest':-The term and the rest includes 'falsity' and 'contradiction
What is meant is that if Eristence is to be proved, then the Probans put forward is open to all the three defects of the Probans. For instance, if the character cited as the Probans is something positive, then it is inad. missible':-if it is both (positive and negative), then it is 'Inconclusive'; -if it is negative, then it is contradictory-This has been thus declared
The positive property is not admitted; both positive and negative would be Inconclusive, and the negative one would be contradictory; how then can Existence bo proved ?'
If what is sought to be proved is the potency in the Eye, the Subject, to bring aboul visual perception,-even so, inasmuch as potency', 'existence' eto. are synonymous, the proving of Potency would involve the proving of Existence.-On the negative aspect also, inasmuch as the Potency, being beyond the reach of the senses, would not be well-known, the Probans would become fallacious, as having no well-known substratum.
Similarly, the Probans, in the form because of the perception of Colour would be something not present in the Subject, and hence it should be understood to be Inadmissible.-1400)
Question "How then can you also prove the existence of the Eyes and the other sense-organs?"
Anster
