________________
1142
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
there has not been shown any reason for sublating such a conclusion; consequently all those Reasons are Inconclusive (2458)
It has been argued by the Mimamsaka, under Text 2128, that-"Every. thing that does this has been found to be permanent, like the universal aspect of Smoke, etc. etc."
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (2459). AS REGARDS THE UNIVERSAL ASPECT OF SMOKE'..... [LACUNA IN
THE TEXT].... YOUR ARGUMENT IS 'SUPERFLUOUS '-(2459)
COMMENTARY
What is spoken of as the "Inferential Indicative' (Probans) is the Universal', which is only the Thing as 'excluded from heterogeneous things' -and this is not eternal ; consequently your Corroborative Instance is devoid of the Probandum':-(2459)
It has been argued by the Mimāmsaka under Text 2131, that--" If the one-ness of the Jar, which is urged, etc. etc."
The answer to this is the same, in regard to Letters also. This is what is pointed out in the following:
TEXTS (2460-2461).
IF THE ONE-NESS OF THE LETTERS Ga, ETO. THAT IS URGED AS AR UNDESIRABLE CONTINGENCY, IS IN REFERENCE TO THE UNIVERSAL ASPECT ', THEN THE ARGUMENT IS SUPERFLUOUS ; BECAUSE THE ASPECT OF 'EXCLUSION OF THE UNLIKE' IS ALREADY POSTULATED BY US AS ONE AND THE SAME IN ALL IN. DIVIDUALS. IF THE INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES WERE URGED TO BE ONE AND THE SAME, THEN THE REASON WOULD BE INCONCLUSIVE': BECAUSE THE MULTIPLICITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL LETTER HAS BEEN DEFINITELY RECOGNISED, IN EVERY USE OF THEM, BY MEANS OF SENSEPERCEPTION, ETO.
-(2460-2461)
COMMENTARY.
Five arguments have been set forth (by the Mimämsaka) under Texts 2121 et seg. ;-if what is meant to be proved by these is the one-ness of the