________________
"THE REVEALED WORD.”
1195
Even if what is meant to be proved were the deficiency of a particular Cause, our argument could not be 'inconclusive'; nor would our Corroborative Instance be devoid of the Probandum'; what is meant is as follows: even when one thing is present, if the other thing does not come into existence, the former cannot be the cause of the latter,-according to you; -0.g. Visual organ does not appear when Sound is present even when the particular forms of the letter Ga' are there, the Cognitions held to proceed from them do not come into existence; hence there is non-apprehension of the wider character.
Here also the fact of the Eternal Thing not needing another Cause supplies the reason for the annulment of the contrary conclusion. The case of the Seed in the granary cannot be cited to the contrary ; because the seed can. not be the primary cause of the Sprout. We desist from labouring this point further.-(2600)
The case
Prout. We say; beca
It has been argued above, by the Mimāmsaka, under Text 2211, that "Because it is dependent upon the manifesting articulations, therefore it is apprehended only at the place where they are, etc. etc.”
Though this idea has been already refuted, the author reverts to it, in order to point out that the view is open to objection even if there be a manifester for eternal things
TEXTS (2601-2605).
IT MAY BE THAT THE APPREHENSION OF THE WORD-SOUND IS DEPENDENT
UPON THE MANIFESTING ARTICULATIONS ; BUT EVEN SO IT COULD BE APPREHENDED ONLY AS IT REALLY EXISTS; OTHERWISE, THE APPREHENSION WOULD NOT BE OF THAT SOUND AT ALL; AS ITS FORM WOULD NOT FIGURE IN THAT APPREHENSION. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE WORD-SOUND IS NEVER APPREHENDED AS PERVADING OVER THE WHOLE Akāsha. WHY THEY DOES THE WORD-SOUND FOLLOW THE DIVERSITY OF PLACE OY THE ARTICULATION? WHEN MANIFESTED, IT WOULD APPEAR BY ITSELF, LIKE THE JAR AND OTHER THINGS. ALL THIS ABOUT THE CAUSE HAS BEEN SAID ONLY BY WAY OF AN ELABORATION OF OUR ARGUMENT. IN REALITY THE INEFFICIENCY OF THE manifesters HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF manifestation.-AS REGARDS THE DIRECTLY PERCEPTIONAL NOTION THAT THIS IS THE SAME WORD-SOUND', -THAT HAS BEEN ALREADY DISCARDED; AND IT STANDS UNREFUTED THAT APPEARING IN DIVERSE PLACES, THE WORD-SOUND MUST BE DIVERSE.—(2601-2605)
COMMENTARY. • If the apprehension of the Word-Sound is dependent upon manifesters, then, how is it that it is not apprehended as pervading the entire Akāsha,