________________
14.50
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
"How?"
Answer- Due to, etc., etc.—The term 'tat stands for the aforesaid three, called: (1) Nature' (2) 'Pervader', and (3) 'Cause ' 'tadvi. ruddha' is that which is contrary to these; this also is three-fold (1) contrary to Nature', (2) contrary to Pervader, and (3) contrary to 'Cause' ;-the term "ādi' includes (1) the contrary effect, (2) the effect contrary to the cause, and (3) those pervaded by its contraries. The second *tat' refers again to the said three-(1) Nature, (2) Pervador and (3) Cause; - so that the compound 'tat-tadviruddha', stands for (a) the three (Nature, etc.), and (b) the contraries of these three ;-tho 'agati' and 'gati' stand for the (a) non-cognition and (6) cognition of these respectively, i.e. the noncognition of the Nature, the Pervader and the Cause, and the cognition of the contrary of these ;-the diversities are due to these and the arguments are put forward on the basis of all this.
That which is due directly to the non-cognition of these, the Nonapprehension of the Nature, Cause and Pervader, has been pointed out above; of this same basic Non apprehension, all the other Non-apprehensions are merely indirect indicatives ; hence this three-fold Non-apprehension forms their 'basis'. For instance, the cognition of the contrary' indicates (1) the apprehension of the contrary of its Nature, (2) the apprehension of the contrary of its Pervader and (3) the apprehension of the contrary of its Cause. The term adi' indicates (1) the apprehension of the contrary effect, (2) the apprehension of the effect contrary to the cause, and (3) the apprehension of what is pervaded by the contrary.-All these indirectly indicate, respectively, the Non-apprehension of the Nature, of the Pervader and of the Cause.
Thus by showing that the three basic forms of Non-apprehension are not able to prove the non-existence of the Omniscient Person, the incapacity of their ramifications to do the same follows without effort; hence no attempt need be made for proving that these ramifications also are unable to prove the non-existence of the Omniscient Person. Because, when the root itself has been cut off, the branches cannot continue to live.
In reality, the Non-apprehension of the nature of the thing itself is the root of all, it is only in view of the diversity of other things that the threefold Non-apprehension has been spoken of as the basis' or 'root', (3278. 3279)
The following might be urged-“If the Omniscient Person is not amon. able to Apprehension, then it may be that a particular Non-apprehension of Him is not possible ; but His 'Cause' and 'Pervador are certainly amenable to Apprehension; why then cannot there be particular Non-apprehension of these two ? The contraries also of these being amenable to apprehension, why should not there be apprehension of these contraries ?”
The answer to this is as follows:
