________________
"THE REVEALED WORD."
1089
TEXT (2319).
" IN THE CASE CITED, IT MAY BE THAT THE UNIVERSAL 'IS NOT ADMITTED BY THE PARTY ADDUCING THE PROBANS ; EVEN SO, THE PROBANS REMAINS INVALID, SO LONG AS THE UNIVERSAL 'HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED."-[Shlokavārtika-ETERNALITY OF WORDS,
345-346].-(2319)
COMMENTARY. Even though, by the Buddhist and others who have put forward the Probans in question, the Universal' is not admitted as something wherein the contrary of the Probandum is present,-yet, as a matter of fact, the existence of the Universal cannot be denied. The sense is that, even under the circumstances, the Probans is one whose concomitance with the contrary of the Probandum is suspected (and hence invalid).-(2319)
The Mimāmsaka puts forward another objection against the Probans and the Probandum,--through another alternative
TEXTS (2320-2321). « IN REGARD TO amenability to the senses AND THE REST THAT HAVE BEEN
CITED BY THE OPPONENT), IT HAS TO BE CLEARLY ASCERTAINED WHAT IT REALLY IS ; (a) IS IT THE SAME AS THE INDIVIDUAL (THINGS IN WHICH IT SUBSISTS) ? OR (6) IS IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THEM?-[AND IF IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE INDIVIDUALS]—(c) IS IT DISTINCT WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL ? OR (d) ONE AND THE SAME WITH ALL ?-UNDER ALL THESE, ACCORDING AS THE ALTERNATIVE THAT MAY BE ACCEPTED BY THE OTHER PARTY, THE REASON WOULD BE SUBJECT (RESPECTIVELY) TO THE FALLACIES OF (a) BEING TOO SPECIFIC', (6) BEING INADMISSIBLE', (c) AND HAVING THE CORROBORATIVE INSTANCE DEVOID OF THE PROBANDUM':- [Shlokavārtika-ETERNALITY OF WORDS, 346-348).—(2320-2321)
COMMENTARY.
. And the rest'-includes non-eternality.
An examination is to be made as to the exact nature of the said 'amenability to the senses': (a) Is it the same as the Individuals ? (the individual things in which it subsists) 1-Or (6) is it something different from them - and, if it is different from them, it has to be examined whether these different amenabilities are (c) different with each individual object? or (d) one and the same with all ?
(a) If the 'amenability to sense' is the same as the individuals, the Probans is too specific'; as there can be no negation of individual; and