________________
1194
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXT (2600).
WHEN THE LETTER IS PRONOUNCED IN SUCCESSION, ONE AFTER THE OTHER. THE DIVERSITY IS NOT ONLY DIRECTLY PERCEIVED, BUT ALSO INFERRED THROUGH THE INFERENTIAL INDICATIVE IN THE SHAPE OF THE FACT OF THE COGNITIONS APPEARING IN
SUCCESSION.-2600)
COMMENTARY Not only directly perceived':--because oven so it is clearly apprehended to be diverse, on account of the diversity in the notes, Sadja' and the rest.
This cannot be a case of diversity among the manifesters; as that idea has been already discarded.
* Through the Inferential Indicative ;-i.e. through Inference also; the argument being formulated as follows:-At the time that a thing does not come into existence, its cause is not present in an efficient form,-.g. visual cognition does not appear when the set of its causes is devoid of the Eye, even though the other factors are there in the form of the Colour, the Light, the mental condition, and so forth ;-at the time that the several cognitions of the single letter 'ga' appear, there do not appear those subsequent cognitions which are held to follow from the said cognitions ; hence there is non-apprehension of the wider term; the presence of the efficient cause being invariably concomitant with coming into existence, and the said presenoe' being not there.
Says the Opponent:"If what you seek to prove is the negation of the presence of the efficient cause in general, then your argument is superfluous ; because even though the eternal Word-sound is a cause, there may be a defi. ciency due to the absence of its auxiliaries, which renders the appearance of the subsequent cognitions impossible; and this fact is admitted by your opponent.--If, on the other hand, what you are negativing is the causal efficiency of the Word-Sound in particular, then your Reison is 'Inconclusive', and the Corroborative Instance is devoid of the Probandum'. Because when the Visual Perception does not appear, its non-appearance is not due to the deficiency of the cause of the Word-Sound; it is due to the deficiency (absence) of the eye".
This is not right. What we seek to prove is the fact in its general aspect. Nor is our argument superfluous' in that case. Because if the eternal thing had need of another cause, then alone could our argument be 'superfluous'. As a matter of fact, however, the eternal thing does not depend upon another cause; because such a cause could not render any help to the eternal thing; and it is only what helps that is needed ; otherwise there would be incongruities. Consequently, if the Word-Sound, independently, were held to be the cause, all the cognitions proceeding there. from would always have the efficient cause present; and hence they would all appear at all times. If they did not, then the non-appearance of the cognitions proceeding therefrom would indicate the inefficiency of the Word. Sound itself. How then can our argument be 'superfluous'?
