________________
"THE REVEALED WORD."
1125
TEXT (2413).
THUS, EVEN THOUGH NOT COGNISABLE BY THE five MEANS OF COGNITION, THE AUTHOR OF THE VEDA IS NOT AMENABLE TO NON-APPREHENSION (NEGATION) ALONE -HE BEING JUST LIKE THE AUTHOR OF THE STORY-BOOK WHOSE AUTHOR IS NOT
KNOWN.-(2413)
COMMENTARY.
"Tat-Thus, therefore. Construe thus- Panchabhih agamyopi shrutah karta'.
Avijñāta, etc. The compound is to be expounded as those whose authors are unknown'; and this to be taken as in opposition to (qualifying) * ākhyāyikädi'; and then the Genitive Ending and the 'vati'-affix.-(2413)
The following Text points out the inadmissibility' and hence 'Inconclusiveness of the Mimämsaka's Probans :
TEXT (2414).
IF THE AUTHOR OF THESE STORY-BOOKS IS INFERRED FROM THE FACT OF THEIR BEING EXPRESSIVE OF DISTINCTLY CLEAR MEANINGS,THEN WHY CANNOT THE SAME BE DONE IN REGARD TO THE
VEDA ALSO ?-(2414)
COMMENTARY.
* Taşam stands for the story books, etc.
* Why cannot, etc. etc.'—That is, why is not the Author of the Veda also inferred from its being expressive of distinctly clear meanings 1-there being no difference between the two cases. Thus the Reason-because there is no means of knowing such an Author' becomes inadmissible', ' untrue':-(2414)
Further, the Reason as adduced by the Mimämsaka can have two meanings (1) that the Author is not cognised by any one through the Five Means of Cognition, and (2) that he is not so cognised by the Mimamsaka himself in the former sense, it is Doubtful-hence-Inadmissible ; and in the latter, it is Inconclusive. This is shown in the following:
25