________________
1294
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXV.
The answer to this is-From all this it follows, etc. etc.! – Utsarga' is a general principle; and 'autsargika' is that which is in accordance with the general principle.
* Annulmens '-the certainty that the real state of things is different from that figuring in the cognition - cognition of its source being defective
Objection. Thus then, Validity remaining there as a general rule, how is it discarded? If the invalidity were held to be indicated by annulment and the cognition of the source being defective, then this invalidity would be due to extraneous causes. It might be argued that it is so held by us". But, in that caso, as in the case of Validity boing extraneous, so here also, there would be Infinite Regress.
The answer to this is as follows:- Even though this would be dependent upon, etc. There would be Infinite Regress if the invalidity (of one) were due to the invalidity of another); as a matter of fact, however, invalidity is held to follow from Validity, which is different in kind from invalidity; and it has been established that Validity is self-sufficient; why then should there be an Infinite Regress (2861-2863)
The same idea is further explained :
TEXTS (2864-2865).
"JUST AS VALIDITY IS NOT PROVED BY VALIDITY COGNITION,30 INVALIDITY ALSO IS NOT PROVED BY INVALIDITY. IN THE CASE OF ONE THING BEING DEPENDENT UPON ANOTHER THING OF ITS OWN KIND, THERE CAN BE NO RESTING GROUND ; IN THE CASE OF DEPENDENCE UPON SOMETHING OF ANOTHER KIND, ITS ROOT IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, BECAUSE
IT IS DUE TO ANOTHER CAUSE."-(2864-2865)
COMMENTARY.
Something of another kindi.e. Invalidity this is to be construed with the root is firmly established'-The reason for this is stated in the words' because it is due to another cause'; i.e. of which the cause consists of something else, in the shape of the Valid Cognition.
Has its root firmly established'-ie, whose root is unshakable by reason of its being free from the defects of Infinite Regress, eto.--(2864-2865)
The following might be urged - Though the sublating or annulling cognition may not have its validity dependent on something else, yet it is only when that Cognition is recognised as itself unsublated that it can stamp invalidity upon another Cognition; not otherwise.
The answer to this is as follows:
