________________
1098
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXT (2343).
"THE ARGUMENT MOHT BE URGED IN REGARD TO THE Mahabharata ALSO; BUT IT IS BLOCKED BY THE DISTINCT REMEMBRANCE (MENTION) OF ITS WRITER. TROUGH THERE ARE SUCH
REMEMBRANCES' IN REGARD TO THE VEDA ALSO, - YET, THEY ARE ALL BASED UPON 'COMMENDATORY DESCRIPTION" - Shokusuārtika-ON SENTENCE,
367).—(2343)
COMMENTARY
The same argument might be urged in regard to the Mahābhārata also ; but the Author, Vyasa, is clearly remembered' (mentioned); lonce such an assertion is rendered impossible by this mention of the author, and hence cannot be made. There is no such mention of the Author' in the ense of the Veda
Says the Opponent-In regard to the Vedn also, the Author is mentioned, in such passagos as-Agnirävashchakruh sämäni... athareānangiral!
The answer to this is- Though there are mich, etc. etc. -As regards the mention of authors' in the Veda, that is based upon commendatory descrip. tion; Farthavada' is the 'väda', description, of "artha', 'facta'; this description is the basis of the said mention (of Anthors in the Veda): henca the word 'chakruh' in the passage quoted does not stand for creating or producing, but for remembering ; Ro the meaning is that the persons named remembered the Säman, eto.-(2343)
Question - How has this meaning been determined ? Anster
TEXTS (2344-2345).
"THE PAST AND FUTURE TIMES CAN HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH ANY
Author OY THE VEDA', BECAUSE THEY ARE POINTS OF TIME, LIKE THE Present TIME AS PERCEIVED.-IT SHOULD BE UNDRRSTOOD THAT Brahmi AND THE REST ARE NOT THE Makers OF THE VEDA, ---BROAUSE THEY ARE PERSONS, Tro. WO.,-LIKE ORDINARY MEN ".-(2344-2345)
COMMENTARY.
The two nrguments here not forth are easily understood.-(2344-2345)
In the following Texts, the whole subject matter of the Context is summed up by the Mināmsala and supported by arguments :