________________
980
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XXII.
Question In between these two arguments where is the Corroborative Instance endowed with the character of the Probandum ?
Answer :-"Because the Impression is devoid of the duplicate character ;i.e. the character of the Apprehended and the character of the Apprehender.
(9) Or, there is another argument-This Cognition in question cannot bring about the apprehension of the portion of Cognition produced in one's Cognition,-because it is Cognition -- just as the Cognition appearing in other persons-Maitra and the rest,- does not apprehend the portion arising out of Chaitra's Cognition.-(2064-2068)
The refutation of the above is set forth in the following:
TEXT (2069).
BECAUSE THE TWO ARE NEVER COGNISED SEPARATELY, AS EXPLAINED BEFORE, THEREFORE ALL THE REASONS ADDUCED (BY Kumārila), DOWN TO THE NON-COGNITION OF SAMEN ESS', SHOULD
BE REJECTED AS INADMISSIBLE'.---(2069)
COMMENTARY.
* Because the two are never cognised separately';-i.e. because the Blue and its Cognition are always found together; because for the man who has no apprehension of Cognition, there can be no perception of the Object; all this has been explained before in course of the proof of Cognition being self-cognised where the non-difference between the Blue and its Cognition has been established ;-because of this, all the Reasons adduced above (by Kumärila) down to the non-cognition of sameness cannot be 'admissible'. --(2069)
In the following Text, the Opponent urges that the Reasons are wellknown and admissible':
TEXT (2070).
"THE COGNITION OF THE FORM OF THE Apprehended (object) IS SPOKEN OF AS CONNECTED WITH EXTERNAL SPACE', AND AS APPEARING WITHOUT THE COGNITION OF THE Apprehender
(COGNITION).”—(2070)
COMMENTARY
" As a matter of fact, the External Object is directly perceived as having a shape and as connected with external space-as asserted by Shabara, the author of the Bhäşya (on Mimāmsā-Sūtra 1. 1. 5).-where it has