________________
"THE REVEALED WORD."
1093
TEXTS (2332–2334). ** THE EXACT NATURE OF THE (OPPONENT's) CORROBORATIVE INSTANCE
ALSO HAS GOT TO BE EXAMINED :- IF IT IS MEANT TO BE TAKEN IN ITS DIRECT DENOTATION (1.E. THE UNIVERSAL), THEN, IT IS DEVOID OF THE PROBANDUM. IT IT IS TAKEN IN THE INDIRECT DENOTATION, AS INDICATING THE INDIVIDUAL, THEN THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO ITS BEING THE SAME AS, OR DIFFERENT FROM, THE UNIVERSAL. IF IT IS DIFFERENT (FROM THE UNIVERSAL), THEN THE OBJECT BECOMES ONE THAT CANNOT BE ADMITTED BY US; WHILE IF IT IS NOT DIFFERENT (FROM THE UNIVERSAL), THEN THE OBJECT IS ONE THAT CANNOT BE ADMITTED BY OTHERS.-IF IT IS SOMETHING indefinite (VAGUE),--THEN SUCH A THING CANNOT BE EITHER ENTIRELY eternal OR ENTIRELY non-eternal, For us. BECAUSE THAT ELEMENT IN IT WHICH IS CALLED THE UNIVERSAL 'IS ETERNAL, WHILE THE OTHER ELEMENT IS PERISHABLE ; AND IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE THAT EVERY OBJECT HAS A MIXED CHARACTER ".--[VIDE Shlokuvvīrtika-ETERNALITY OF WORDS, 350-352].-(2332-2334)
COMMENTARY.
The term 'Sapaksa' (which is that wherein the Probandum is known by all to be present) here stands for the Corroborative Instance in the reasoning of the Opponent, where the Jar has been cited as an instance of what is perceived as appearing after effort and is non-eternal).
The question, as regards the Instance that has been cited (the Jar') is is the word meant to be taken in its direct denotative sense (which is the Universal) 1-Or in the sense of the Individual Jar ?
If it is meant to be taken in the direct sense, then it is defective, in so far as it is devoid of the Probandum (Non-eternality). Shruti' here stands for the Word; the artha' is what is directly denoted by it ;- and what is so denoted is the Universal. Jar'-and the Universal is admitted by all parties to be eternal ;-hence there cannot be presence, in it, of non-eternality, which forms the Probandum.
In some places, the reading is jātyarthah' in place of shrutyarthah'; under which jāti' is to be taken as in apposition to 'artha'. The meaning however remains the same as before.
If the second alternative is meant that the word 'Jar' stands for the Individual Jar,--then also, it has to be considered whether the Individual that is intended to be the corroborative Instance is the same as, or different from, the Universal; that is, whether the Individual is something different from the Universal ? Or non-different from it ?
If it is different, then the object cited as the Instance is one that cannot be admitted by the Mimāmsala; because the Mimūmsaka does not hold the Universal to be something absolutely different from the Individual, as the Vaishëşikas and others do; as has been asserted in the words for us the Universal is nothing different from the Individual'.
23