________________
90
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER IT.
TEXT (82)
AGAINST TIH OTHER REASONINGS OF THE THEIST) ALSO, THIS SAME
CRITICISM MAY BE URGED mutatis mutandis ; SOME OTHER
CRITICISM ALSO IS NOW BEING BRIEFLY SET FORTH, -(82)
COMMENTARY.
As against the reason 'Because they have colour, etc., this same criticism may be urged: This same, -as follows:-(a) It is Unproven: (b) as there is no Invariable Concomitance, it is Inconclusive; (c) if there is Invariable Concomitance, it is contradictory: (d) the Instance is devoid of the Probandum; (e) if the Conclusion is meant to be general, it is futile, and so forth.-Tor instance, that presence of Colour, etc. which is controlled by an Intelligent Controller is not admitted as being present in the Tree, etc. ; -mere presence of Colour' by itself is not invariably concomitant (with the Probandum); hence the Probans is Inconclusive: if there is invariable concomitance, then, it becomes contradictory, as proving a conclusion contrary to the one desired ;the Corroborative Instance per similarity is devoid of the Probandum, as no concomitance is admitted with the character of being controlled by an eternal and one Intelligent Being' if the conclusion is meant to be in the general form, then the argument is futile; if it is meant to be specific, then it is inconclusive (Doubtful), the contrary being found to be the case with such things as the Jar and the like.-In this same manner, the criticism may be applied to the other reasonings also.-(82)
Another reason has been put forward (by the Theist, under Text 50)" because they operate intermittently (all such Oauses as Merit, Demerit and Atoms must be controlled by an Intelligent Being]".
Against this an additional objection is put forward in the following Text:
TEXT (83)
"INTERMITTENT ACTION OF ATOMS AND OTHER CAUSES IS not proven
(ADMITTED); AS THERE IS ' PERPETUAL FLUX', ALL THINGS ARE UNDERGOING DESTRUCTION EVERY MOMENT; IT IS ALSO INCONCLUSIVE' IN REFERENCE TO THAT SAME (GOD). AS HIS ACTIVITY ALSO IS CONSECUTIVE (HENCE
INTERMITTENT).-(83)
COMMENTARY
As a matter of fact, all things (according to us) disappear immediately on appearance, and they do not remain in existence even for a single moment; how then can the action of these be 'intermittent'! This Reason therefore is one that is unproven, inadmissible', for your opponent. It is also incon
