________________
1410
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
he had a queen named Damayanti. The King, having lost his entire kingdom, went away into the forest, accompanied by the said Queen alone. When he reached the forest, he became separated from her, through ill-luck. Having his face clouded with tears due to separation from his beloved wife, the King drowned in the ocean of grief and anxiety, his body emaciated, went about wandering hither and thither; and (in brief) somehow managed to secure a living under King Rtuparna, and remained there incognito. His Queen somehow roached her father's place. In order to fetch her husband, she proclaimed it far and wide that Damayanti was going to choose a husband. When King Rtuparna heard that Damayanti was going to choose a husband, he started to go there, accompanied by Nala as his charioteer. Rtuparna was an expert in the art of Gambling, but did not know much about horses; while Nala was an expert in matters relating to Horses, but did not know much about Gambling. Rtuparna somehow came to know that Nala was an expert in matters relating to Horses. Having come to know this, he said to Nala* Please teach me the science of Horses'. Nala said, I shall teach it to you, if you will teach me the art of Gambling ' Thereupon Rtuparna said- AN men do not know all things, etc. etc. Then Nala learnt the art of Gambling from Rtuparna, and won back his kingdom.
Such is the story.-(3172-3173)
Further, if & man is omniscient, he must know the past and future
es also; otherwise, if he knew only what came up at the moment, then he would be only a partial lenower, not all-lenowing (omniscient); and yet it is not possible for any one to know future things.—This is what is pointed out in the following:
TEXT (3174).
“SENSE-PERCEPTION HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND TO POSSESS THE CAPACITY TO APPREHEND FUTURE THINGS; AND AS FOR INFERENCE AND OTHER TORMS OF COGNITION, THESE CAN NEVER COME ABOUT WITHOUT THE INDICATIVE AND OTHER
FACTORS."-(3174)
COMMENTARY
As a matter of fact, Sense-perception is brought about by the capacity of things; and as what is still in the future cannot be an entity, a thing, Sense perception cannot apply to it.
Nor can Inference apply to it; because there can be no Inferential Indicative; there can be no Indicative which is known to be concomitant with what is in the future ; because what has not yet appeared is non-existent. Other factors include the Corroborative Instance.
The mention of the Future is only by way of illustration; what has been said should be taken as applicable to the Past also; because, the past thing also being a non-entity, there can be no functioning of Sense-peroeption over it.
Thus the invariable concomitance (Premiss) relating to the Reasonsbeing cognisable and the rest (put forward under Text 3157)-becomes
