________________
1256
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
The Reason adduced here cannot be regarded as Inadmissible. Because it has been already proved that all men are without such means, under the passage-To whom would the Speaker have recourse to for the purpose of making up the Relationship for the benefit of the Hearer?'
Question-If that is so, then, as of the Cause, so of the absence of the assertion of Relationship itself, an Inference may be put forward.
The answer to that is that for the proving of the 'absence of the said assertion', the Reason-being devoid of the means would be inadmissible. -(2777-2778)
In the following Text, the Mimāmsaka shows how the said Reason would be Inadmissible
TEXT (2779).
"THE ONLY MEANS (OF COMPREHENDING THE MEANING) CONSISTS IN THE PERCEIVING OF ITS REPEATED COMPREHENSION BY EXPERIENCED PEOPLE. AND CERTAINLY THE FAILURE OF SUCH MEANS CANNOT BE ADMITTED, IN REGARD TO THE BRINGING ABOUT OF THE COMPREHENSION " .-[Shlokavārtika-Sambandha
kşępa-parihīra, 138-139).—(2779)
COMMENTARY.
The comprehension of the Relationship by experienced persons-perceived again and again is the only way of asserting that Relationship : unless one knows the Relationship himself, he cannot speak of it to another person.
The failure of such means,' - i.e. the said means being ineffective. The comprehension of the Relationship.-(2779)
In the following Text, the Author proceeds to point out the defects in the above reasoning (of the Mimamsaka) :
TEXT (2780).
ALL THIS WOULD BE TRUE, ONLY IF THERE WERE CERTAINTY IN REGARD TO THE MEANING OF THE VEDA; ONLY IN THAT CASE COULD THE NOTIONS OBTAINED FROM EXPERIENCED MEN BE TRUE (IN CONSONANCE WITH IT); OTHERWISE THE WHOLE FABRIC
WILL FALL TO THE GROUND,-(2780)
COMMENTARY.
It has been argued (under Text 2777) above that—"Barring the beginninglessness of the Word and its Meaning, etc. eto."-If, it is eternality of the Word and Meaning that is meant by their "beginninglessness', then