________________
1216
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
Verbal usage is otherwise inexplicable that it is believed with certainty that there have been generations of experienced men who have been duly cogni. sant (of the Connection in question)".
This is not right; because Verbal usage could proceed also on another basis--that of Convention. It has not been quito definitely ascertained. but it is doubtful whether this is eternal or non-eternal. This is the reason why the Text has used the expression, it is suspected ' What is meant is that on the basis of the said Presumption, all that is sought to be proved is the mere existence of the Relationship ; it indicatos nothing about the peculiar fenture of it ;--that is, because there is no concomitance with such a feature. On this point, there is no difference between Presumption and Inference.
The following might be urged-“As a matter of fact, no non-eternal thing has ever been found to bring about the cognition of the meanings of words; nor can this be possible, as has been explained before ; and it is this incapacity of the non-eternal that proves the Relationship (which brings about the said Cognition) to be eternal.
This same argument, however, can be urged against the eternal thing also. The Reason adduced is also inadmissible'; for instance, it can be said, with equal justification, that the eternal Relationship also has never been found to bring about the cognition of the meaning; and further, such things as gostures by the hand, etc., even though non-eternal, are actually found to be expressive of meanings ; hence the Opponent's Reason is inad. missible'. Hence it cannot be admitted that "it is not possible for the non-eternal thing to bring about the cognition of the meaning ". On the other hand, it is in the case of the eternal thing that the said expression cannot be right; because of the incongruity involved in the affective activity of the eternal thing being consecutive or concurrent.What has been said therefore, deserves no consideration.-(2665-2666)
Having thus summed up the 'Inconclusiveness of Presumption, the Author now sums up the argument to the contrary, annulling that Presumption:
TEXT (2667). FOR THESE REASONS, ALL SUCH WORDS AS 'Cow', 'HORSE' AND SO FORTH CANNOT HAVE ANY ETERNAL RELATIONSHIPS, BECAUSE THEY ARE DEPENDENT UPON CONVENTION,LIKE SUCH
WORDS AS 'gāvi' AND THE LIKE.-(2667)
COMMENTARY * Tat'-Therefore.
Nityasambandhayoginah'-to be construed with 'na'. The formulation of this argument has been presented before.-(2667)
Says the Opponent "Such words as 'güvi' and the like are incorrect (grammatically); and as such these are not truly expressive; hence your
