________________
1454
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
Non-existence i.e. what is cognised is not non-existence, but existence.
The answer to this is that it cannot be known what the knowledge of other people is.-(3284)
The Opponent having been asked—How do you know?'-upplies the answer, which is then refuted :
TEXTS (3285-3286).
"WE KNOW IT FROM THE ASSERTION (OF OTHER PERSONS)":-THEN (THE ANSWER IS) IS THERE NOT SUCH ASSERTION IN REGARD TO THE OMNISCIENT PERSON ALSO THEN AGAIN, HOW IS IT THAT YOU DO NOT RECALL ANOTHER ASSERTION OF YOURS TO THE EFFEOT THAT"MEN ARE ALWAYS FOUND TO BE LIARS" ? AND JUST AS THERE CAN BE NO CONTIDENCE IN THE WORDS OF MEN REGARDING PRESENT THINGS, 80 ALSO THERE CAN BE NONE IN THE WORDS SPEAKING OF
PAST THINGS.-(3285-3286)
COMMENTARY.
The word 'Upadëshat' has to be construed with siddha' of the preceding text.
By showing the incongruity involved, the author points out the incon clusive character of what has been urged-'Is there not, etc. etc. - Ayam - the assertion is it not present in regard to the Omniscient Person? It. is certainly present. Under the circumstances, if the assertion regarding the marriage of one's mother is accepted as reliable, then why should you not regard our assertion, that the Omniscient Person does exist', as reliable ? There is no difference between the two cases.
Further, in your words, you have declared that assertions are unreliable ; this is pointed out in the words--How is it that you do not recall, etc. etc.'. -(3285-3286)
So far it has been explained that the absence of one's own apprehension of the Omniscient Person cannot serve as a proof of His non-existence; because, without a qualification, it is inconclusive, and with a qualification, it has no substratum ;now the Author proceeds to explain that the absence of the apprehension of all men also cannot serve as proof of the non-existence of the Oraniscient Person ; because such non-apprehension by all men cannot be proven :
