________________
1266
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXTS (2804-2806).
WHEN THE PERPETUAL FLUX HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE VEDA, AS
SOMETHING ETERNAL BY ITSELF, BECOMES CLEARLY DISCARDED.HOW THEN CAN THERE BE ANY COGNITION PRODUCED BY IT-IT HAS CERTAINLY BEEN DECLARED IN THE VEDA OFTEN ENOUGH THAT
IT DOES NOT PERISH IN REGARD TO THE PURUŞA (SPIRIT, SOUL): BUT THE REJECTION OF THIS HAS BEEN CLEARLY SET FORTH ABOVE ; HENCE THE REASON IS CLEARLY INADMISSIBLE'. IF A MAN IS CAPABLE OF DIRECTLY PERCEIVING TIME, SPACE AND OTHER SOULS LIKE THE JUJUBE-FRUIT IN THE PALM OF HIS HANDS, HE ALONE CAN HAVE A COGNITION FOR WHOM THERE COULD BE NO REJECTION OF THE SAID IDEAS).-(2804–2806)
COMMENTARY. "That which is eternal by itself becomes discarded"-such is the construction.
What is meant is as follows :-It having been proved, by Inference based upon valid Reasons, that all things are subject to Perpetual Flux'. --the Vedia, which has been held to be eternal, becomes discarded. Svaru. pêna', by itself, has been added with a view to exclude the subject-matter.
How can there be any Cognition produced by it?'-That is, it cannot be.
This means that the Reason-because it is brought about by assertions not proceeding from an unreliable person is Inadmissible, in respect of its substratum.
The words 'It has certainly been, etc. etc. show that the other Reason* because it is free from annulment', -is inadmissible' by itself.-We read in the Veda that being imperishable, it perisheth not' and 'Indestructible indeed is this Soul ':-Of this Soul or Spirit, the rejection has been set forth in the chapter dealing with No-Soul'. Hence the Reason is surely 'inad. missible.
Says the Opponent :-" There is the clear declaration in the Shabara. Bharya) that 'Injunction is the name given to the assertion that prompts activity'; which shows that it is only a particular portion of the Veda that is called Injunction, not the whole Veda. And it is the Cognition produced by Injunction that has been made the Subject of our Reasoning. Conse. quently, even though there may be rejection of the Veda in regard to other matters, there can be no rejection of the Injunction. So that the Reason remains perfectly admissible”.
This does not affect our position. In some place the entire Veda has been spoken of as 'Chodana' (Injunction).-which name has not always been applied to the prompting Sentence only. Otherwise, the sentence 'One should not injure living beings' would not be an Injunction; as it does not prompt to activity.
This also would be incompatible with the assertion in the Shabara-Bhasya -"Both are here spoken of in the Injunction, that which is conducive to
