________________
1426
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
be regarded as ephemeral, not-eternal; because the other party does not admit of an eternal scripture and because, if they did admit of it, the postulating of the Omniscient Person would be entirely futile.-(3211-3212)
The same idea is further explained :
TEXTS (3213-3214).
"RATHER THAN ADMIT THE IDEA OF THE SCRIPTURE INDICATING THE OMNISCIENT PERSON, IT IS FAR BETTER TO ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT IT INDICATES Dharma. BECAUSE THE CLEAR KNOWLEDGE OF Dharma (DIRECTLY FROM THE VEDA) IS SUPERIOR TO THE UNCLEAR KNOWLEDGE DERIVED INDIRECTLY THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE OMNISCIENT PERSON MENTIONED IN THE VEDA.-THUS IT CANNOT BE MAINTAINED THAT THE OMNISCIENT PERSON IS SPOKEN OP IN THE SCRIP
TURES."-3213-3214)
COMMENTARY.
Rather than entertain the idea that the Eternal Scripture mentions the Omniscient Person, it is better to accept the idea that Dharma is taught by that Scripture.
Question. In what way is it better?
Answer:-Because the clear knowledge, etc. etc.'-The knowledge of Dharma derived from the Veda is clear and direct; because the light emanating therefrom is equally available for all things. On the other hand, the Dharma learnt through the knowledge of the Omniscient Person mentioned in the Scripture is indirect and indistinct; because the said Person has retired into Nirvana and cannot be clearly perceptible. Even when He had not retired into Nirvana, He would have no desires, and hence could not impart any teachings. Even if He did impart teachings, these could not be heard by all men at all times and places.(3213-3214)
The following Text shows that the Omniscient Person cannot be vouched for by 'Analogy'
TEXT (3215).
"IF ANY PERSON similar TO THE OMNISCIENT PERSON WERE SEEN AT THE PRESENT TIME, THEN ALONE COULD THE EXISTENCE OF THE OMNISCIENT PERSON BE COGNISED ON THE
STRENGTH OF ANALOGY."-(3215)
COMMENTARY.
Analogy, as a Means of Cognition-based upon similarity and its adjuncts, -envisages the far off things, and is invariably concomitant with the Cogni.
