________________
1094
TATTVASANURADA: CHAPTER XXIV.
If, on the other hand, the Individual is meant to be non-ifferent from the Universal),—then the object cited as the Instance is one that eannot be admitted by the Buddhist and others. These others do not regard the Universal as non-different from the Individual.
If the Jar is meant to be the Instance, in the indetinito form, free from all conceptual contents like difference and non-difference, even then, accord. ing to us, the Instance comes to be one dovoid of tho Probandum. This is what is asserted in the words. If it is somethiny indefinito, etc. etc.'- Tal' stands for the Jar.
Question How so?
Anster - That element, elc. etc. --Of the entity called 'Jur', that factor which is called the Universal' is eternal, while the other factor which is called the Individual' is perishable.
Question :-How can one and the same thing have two mutuully contradictory characters ?
Answer :- Mixed character, etc. etc.-(2332-2334)
The Mimāmsaka proceeds again to point out the defects in the Corroborativo Instance, through the various alternatives that are possible in regard. to the Probandum :
TEXT (2335).
" IN THE SAME MANNER, THE EXACT NATURE OF NON-ETERNALITY (YOUR PROBANDUM) ALSO HAS GOT TO BE CONSIDERED. IT WHAT IS MEANT IS ABSOLUTE DESTRUCTION, THEN THE INSTANCE IS DEVOID OF THIS PROBANDUM, FOR US. IF IT IS OTHERWISE, THEN THE INSTANCE IS DEVOID OF THE PROBANDUM, FOR YOU. THUS BRIEFLY HAS THE WAY BEEN SHOWN FOR FINDING DEFECTS IN YOUR ARGUMENT".-[Shlokavārtika-ETERNALITY OF
WORDS, 353].-(2335)
COMMENTARY.
If what is inoant by your Probandum, 'non-oternality is absoluto Destruction,-then for us, Mimämaalas, the Instance is devoid of the Probandum ; because we do not admit of any absolute Destruction of things; as they always remain in the form of Potencies.
Though the word used in the Text is the common word, näsha', yet from the Context, its mouning appears to be restricted to ulter, absolute destruction. If it were not so, why should the writer have urged the argumont that the Instance is devoid of the Probandum ?
Question. The question as to what is meant by non-etornality' has been already discussed before under Text 2315; why is it discussed over again?