________________
1246
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXT (2751)
THE IDEA OF A DUAL CHARACTER OF ANY OBJECTIVE ENTITY HAS BEEN REJECTED. CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE CASE OF THE JAR, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT ONE ASPECT OF IT SHOULD BE ETERNAL,
IN THE SHAPE OF THE UNIVERSAL':-(2751)
COMMENTARY.
It has been argued by the Mimāmsala, under Text 2335, that-"In the same manner the exact nature of non-eternality also has to be considered, etc. etc.".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (2752).
"NON-ETERNALITY 'IS HELD TO CONSIST MERELY IN the overthrow (negation) of the excisting state, AND IT IS THIS THAT IS THE PROBANDUM (IN OUR ARGUMENT); AND THE LAMP PROVIDES A CLEAR
CORROBORATIVE INSTANCE OF THE SAME.(2752)
COMMENTARY.
The 'non-eternality' that is meant to be our Probandum is that which is merely of the nature of the negation of the existing state; and in corroboration of this, we have the instance of the Lamp and such things. Wherefore then can our Corroborative Instance be 'devoid of the Probandum' :-(2752)
In the following texts the Author puts forward from the Opponent's standpoint-the objection that the Instance of the Lamp also is devoid of the Probandum':
TEXTS (2753-2755). “THE PERISHABILITY (NON-ETERNALITY) OF THE LAMP-FLAME IS NOT ADMITTED. WHAT HAPPENS IN ITS CASE IS THAT VERY SUBTLE PORTIONS OF IT PASS ON TO ANOTHER PLACE VERY QUICKLY ; A LARGE MASS OF LIGHT REMAINS AT THE POINT OF THE WICK; THAT PORTION WHICH GOES UPWARD IS CALLED THE 'FLAME'; THAT WHICH PASSES EVEN BEYOND THAT
CONSISTS OF MERE LIGHT (DIFFUSED); THAT • WHICH PASSES STILL FURTHER IS TOO SUBTLE TO BE PERCEIVED."
(2753-2755)
COMMENTARY.
The portions of the Flame pass on from point to point, very quickly; and it does not perish in a moment.-(2753-2755)