________________
1312
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXV.
TEXT (2916).
"FOR THESE REASONS, EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE FALSITY IS EXPLAINED TO OTHERS, THESE TWO IDEAS HAVE TO BE POINTED OUT, -
-AND NOT MERE SIMILARITY."—(2916)
COMMENTARY
In cases such as that of the Vedic Injunction.
These twoo ideas '-i.e. the idea that the truth is otherwise than what has been said in the Veda, and also that what has been so said has had a defective source.
Mere similarity '-i.e. the mere fact of being 'words' and thereby being similar to human assertions.-(2916)
Question :-Why should mere similarity not be urged ? Anster
TEXTS (2917-2919).
"THE IGNORANT MEN WHO, ON THE BASIS OF MERE SIMILARITY TO INVALID COGNITIONS, SEEK TO PROVE THE INVALIDITY OT all COGNITIONS, FOR THEM SUCH AN ARGUMENT IS CONDUCIVE TO THEIR OWN RUIN. BECAUSE FOR THE OTHER PARTY ALSO, THERE COMES ABOUT AN ARGUMENT WHICH IS THE REFLECTION OF THE BUDDHIST ARGUMENT ; AND THUS BEING REFUTED BY THIS, THE ARGUMENT (OF THE BUDDHIST) TURNS OUT TO BE THE MEANS OF PROVING WHAT IS NOT TRUE; AND AS SUCH, IT IS NOT CAPABLE OF SETTING ASIDE THE VEDIO INJUNCTION
WHICH IS INHERENTLY VALID." (2917-2919)
COMMENTARY.
If a Cognition were invalid simply because it is similar to another Cognition which is invalid),—then all Cognitions would have to be regarded as invalid ; because some sort of similarity-such as being an entity can be asserted in all cases-Such is the meaning of the Text in brief.
Question How is it conducive to their own ruin?
Anster - For the other party also, etc. etc.'-'Other party'-i.e. the Mimümsaka. Reflection, etc. just as the reflection appears after the reflected object, so, after the argument of the Buddhist, there appears the counter-argument of the Mimāmsaka.
For instance, it is open to the Mimāmsaka to argue as follows : The words of the Veda are not false,-because they are Words, etc. etc. ;-like such human assertions as 'Fire is hot, bright and so forth'
Thus being refuted-negatived-by such counter-arguments, the argument that had been adduced by the Buddhist and others to prove the idea of Vedic Injunction being false is quite incapable of rejecting the Vodic Injunction.-Why -Because of the inherent validity of the Vedic
