________________
1394
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
now this offeet cannot be brought about in the thing denoted by the words concerned ; consequently, by implication, they are applied to the words themselves, by Grammarians.-In the same manner, if you also, finding that it is impossible for any one to know all things, explain the term 'all' appearing in the statement of your doctrine, as standing for the word * all', that the man knowing the word 'all' would be 'all-knowing: then this may be so in name, i.e. in name only; for no one can prevent a man applying to words any meaning he likes; as the naming of things depends upon the mere whim of man"-(3130)
TEXT (3131). KE THING RELATED TO THE CONTEXT IS SOME SUCH THING AS OIL. WATER OR CLARIFIED BUTTER.-AND IF A PERSON KNOWING ALL ABOUT SUCH A THING IS CALLED 'ALL-KNOWING '; - THEN HE MAY BE SO; WE DO NOT DENY
THAT."—(3131)
COMMENTARY. "If what is meant by the term 'all' are things other than Dharma and Adharna,-such as Oil, Water, Clarified Buttor, etc.--and the Person is regarded as 'all-knowing' on account of his knowledge of these things-then your argument is superfluous"-(3131)
"Further, is the all-knowing person regarded as such-because he knows a little of the universe as a whole ? Or because he knows the whole of it in full detail ?-If the former, then it is futile; it being admitted by us. -This is pointed out in the following
TEXTS (3132-3133).
"THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS INCLUDED UNDER THE TWO TERMS' POSITIVE' AND NEGATIVE'; IF ONE WHO KNOWS THIS EPITOME OF THE WORLD IS CALLED "ALL-KNOWING', THEN WHO IS THERE THAT DOES NOT ACCEPT SUCH AN OMNISCIENT' PERSON IN THE SAME WAY, THE TERM ALL'MAY BE APPLIED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH UNIVERSAL TERMS AS 'KNOWABLE,
COGNISABLE' AND THE LIKE (WHICH INCLUDE all THINGS); IF ONE WHO KNOWS THIS IS CALLED ' OMNISCIENT', WHO CAN OBJECT TO THIS ?"-(3132.
3133)
COMMENTARY. “The whole world, consisting of things that are mutually exclusive, is negative'; and when the things are spoken of positively, it is positive':
