________________
1340
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXV.
AS THE CONFORMITY OF THE RESULT IS PERCEIVED WHEN THE OBJECT IS NEAR BY ; AND FROM THAT FOLLOWS THE COGNITION OF THE PERFECTION OF THE SOURCES (OP THE COGNITION) WITHOUT ANY EFFORT. IN THE CASE WHERE THE OBJECT IS NOT IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, THE COGNITION ARISING FROM IT MUST BE VALID), BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY IT (THE PERFECT CAUSE), JUST LIKE THE COGNITION APPREHENDING THE OBJECT WHICH IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY (TO THE OBSERVER).(2987-2990)
OOMMENTARY.
There are two kinds of Cognition-one envisaging the object near the observer, and the other envisaging the object remote from him. As regards the former, its validity is ascertained, not by the recognition of the perfec. tion of its cause, but from the Cognition of its being in conformity to effective activity. Because, in this case, the Cognition of the perfection of its sources is not possible, until its truth is recognised through its conformity to effective action; and when its truth has been recognised, if the Cognition of the perfection of its sources comes later on, it can serve no useful purpose.
As regards the Cognition envisaging remote things, its validity can be ascertained through the Cognition of the perfection of its sources - this is what is pointed out in the sentence- In the case where the object is not in close proximity, etc. etc.'-For instance, the validity of the Cognition of the golden conch-shell, which is far remote from the observer, can be ascertained only from the fact of its being brought about by it,-.e. being brought about by perfect (efficient) causes, just like the Cognition of the white conch-shell, which is near the man. This argument may be thus formulated
That Cognition which has been brought about by perfect causes must be valide.g. the Cognition of the white conch-shell, lying near the observer-this particular Cognition envisaging the remote object, in the shape of the yellow conch-shell, is one that has been bronght by perfect causes ;-thus this is a reason based upon the nature of the things concerned.--(2987-2990)
Says the Opponent :-"The Reason adduced in this argument is 'inadmissiblo'; because the perfection of the cause cannot be recognised without * conformity with the renl state of the thing'; because the Sense-organs (which are the cause of Cognitions) are themselves beyond the reach of the senses; and when conformity with the real state of things is needed, that in itself constitutes well-ascertainod validity; so that the recognition of the perfection of the causo' would serve no useful purpose ; as it would come after the validity has become ascertained. - It might be argued that'At times, from the Cognition of the object close by, one would find that it is in conformity with effective action and from that he would know that the source of the Cognition has been perfect, and then he would conclude that the Cognition is ralid; while at other times, in tho case of the remote objeot, even though
