________________
92
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER II.
preceded by the teaching of the particular person called God, then the Reason put forward is 'Inconclusive', because as a matter of fact, it is actually possible in other ways also (withont such teaching). The Corroborative Instance also, in this case, would be devoid of the Probandum. This has already been urged before as a general defect (in the Theist's argument).-(84)
The following Text proceeds to show that the Reason put forward is also contradictory' and the Conclusion is contrary to the Theist's own doctrines
TEXT (85).
THEN AGAIN, THE TEACHERSHIP' OF A MOUTHLESS PERSON CAN ONLY BE A MATTER OF BLIND FAITH; God's MOUTHLESSNESS' IS PROVED BY HIS HAVING NO BODY, ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABSENCE IN HIM
OF MERIT AND DEMERIT.-(85)
COMMENTARY.
If it were possible for usage to be proceded by (due to) Cod's teaching, then the Reason might not be Contradictory', as it is however, God having no mouth, it is not possible for Him to be a teacher; and the fact of His having no mouth is proved by His having no body,-i.e, because He is devoid of a body-Question-"But how do you know that He has no body?"Answer-On account of the absence in Him of Merit and Demerit; that is, in God there is no Merit and Demerit, which are the causes of Souls having bodies. This has been thus declared by Uddyota lara :-Proof is available for the presonce of Intelligence in God, but there is no proof for the presence of such qualities as Merit and the rest *_Thus the 'tenchership of God being impossible, usage cannot be attributed to His teaching: what is indicated is only the fact of its being due to the teaching of some persons other than God; and thus by discarding what is desired to be proved, the Reason becomes - Contradictory'.
Even if God's leachership is admitted, the doctrine that He is * mouthless becomes abandoned ; and in this way the conclusion becomes contrary to the Theist's own doctrine.
As regards the argument- The manifest consisting of the Primary Elements and the rest being controlled by an Intelligent Controller, etc. etc. (put forward by Uddyolakara, in Nyayavintika, p. 463, and quoted in the Text 52), it can be shown that the Reasons cited there also, as before, are (a) 'inconclusive, as there is no proof against a contrary conclusion, () futile, if the reason is meant to be stated generally-and (c) if it is
* This is an exact quotation from the Nydyavartika, p. 468, 11. 12 el. seq., Bib. Ind. Ed., with this slight difference that for Saltve' in the present context, Nyâyavārtika has. Sambhace'.
