________________
1136
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXTS (2441-2442).
BOTH CASES ARE EQUALLY INDEPENDENT OF THE NEED OF A CORROBORA
TIVE INSTANCE, AND BOTH ARE EQUALLY FREE FROM DEFECTS, BECAUSE BOTH RELATE TO SOMETHING IMPERCEPTIBLE-IT MIGHT BE URGED THAT-IN THE CASE OF THE HUMAN ASSERTION, ITS SUBLATION OR DENIAL WOULD BE SUSPECTED, ON THE GROUND OF ITS PROCEEDING FROM A HUMAN BEING' IF THAT BE SO, THEN IN THE CASE OF THE VEDIC ASSERTION ALSO, THE SAID SUSPICION CANNOT BE ENTIRELY ABSENT; IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY NATURAL THAT IT SHOULD BE THE SOURCE OF FALSE NOTIONS.(2441-2442)
COMMENTARY
The following might be urged-“It is possible that at the time that the human assertion is made, no defect may be found in it ; but, as it arises from a human source, the suspicion is always there that it may be false".
The same may be said of the Veda also. Because truthfulness is as natural to it as falsity.
Hence there is no difference between the two cases.—(2441-2442)
It has been argued (by the Mināmsaka) under Text 2111 that," while the Veda is clearly bringing about the cognition of things, etc. etc."
But the same may be said in regard to the human assertion also to the effect that 'Heaven does not result from the performance of the Agnihotra.'
This is what is stated in the following:
TEXT (2443).
WHILE THE WORD (HUMAN) IS CLEARLY BRINGING ABOUT THE COGNITION OF THINGS, NO RIGHT-MINDED PERSON SHOULD SAY, THROUGH SHEER MALICE, THAT IT IS human (AND HENCE
UNRELIABLE).-(2443)
COMMENTARY.
The assertion that 'Heaven does not follow from the performance of the Agnihotra' is human-i.e. it proceeds from man ;- such an assertion even though clearly bringing about the cognition of things, is not reliable for us, Mimāmsakas '--this should not be said by any right-minded person, through sheer malice.-This is the sense of the passage in the text.-What is meant by this is that in the matter of what is entirely beyond the senses, the capacity to bring about cognitions belongs equally to human and nonhuman Words. Thus the capacity of bringing about cognitions being equally present in both, there can be no reason why reliability should belong to one and not to the other.
