________________
704
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XVIII.
unthink.
the perception is due to the force of the attendant circumstances able indeed are the diverse forces of things H 1427)
The above objection is answered as follows:
TEXTS (1428-1429).
EVEN THOUGH THE CHARACTER OF THE EXTITY' DOES NOT BELONG
TO THE REFLECTION AS A CORPOREAL OBJECT, YET HOW CAN THE COGNITION ENVISAGING THE RELECTION BR REGARDED AS Objectless ? AND IT IS THIS LATTER (COGNITION), THAT IS REGARDED HERE AS THE * EFFECT AND THE Inferential INDICATIVE'; AND THOUGH ITSELF WITHOUT A MATERIAL BASIS, THE COGNITION APPEARS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE REFLECTED OBJECT WHICH IS THEREFORE REGARDED AS ITS Cause.
-(1428-1429)
COMMENTARY. It is only the Cognition of the form of the Reflection that is regarded as the effect, and hence the Inferential Indicative, and not any external object in the shape of the Reflection':-(1429-1429)
Objection : "It has been asserted under Text 1363 that– Inference for the sake of others consists in the statement of the three-featured Probans? Why has this been so asserted, when other people have described the Inference for the sake of others as consisting of the statement of the Proposition, "Final Conclusion and Re-affirmation also ?"
This is what is anticipated and answered in the following
TEXT (1430). THE Inference for the sake of others HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY OTHERS AS THE STATEMENT OF THE PROPOSITION AND THE REST'.BUT, NOT BEING AN INTEGRAL PART OT PROOF (PROV
ING'), THE PROPOSITION IS OF NO USE. (1430)
COMMENTARY. The author rejects the said view of other people, in the words - But, nol, etc. etc. - Sadhana', 'Proof', (here) stands for the proving; i.e. the cognition of the object to be cognised the Proposition is not an integral part-i.e. the cause of the proving; this is what is meant by the compound * asādhanangabhūtam'.
