________________
798
TATTVASANGRAHA: OHAPTER XIX,
TEXT (1624). THAT THERE IS fatness WHEN THERE IS eating IS KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY THROUGH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CONCOMITANCE ; AND HENCE THE COGNITION OF ONE THING FOLLOWS FROM THE
OTHER WHICH IS THUS RELATED TO IT, -(1624)
COMMENTARY. The relation of Cause and Effect between Fatness and Eating-as between Fire and Smoke, is known with certainty : whereby it is right that there should be cognition of one thing-i.e. the Eating-(which is the Cause) from another thing-i.e. the Fatness, which is related to the former as its effect. But it cannot be right that the cognition of one sentence should proceed from another sentence which is not so related to it; as if there were such cognition, then there would be incongruities.-(1624)
The following Text shows what the incongruity would be :
TEXT (1625).
HOW CAN A SENTENCE BE COGNISED, WHICH IS DEVOID OF ALL RELATIONSHIP? OTHERWISE ALL THINGS WOULD BE COGNISED THROUGH
A SINGLE THING.-(1625)
COMMENTARY.
such
How can a sentence be cognised, which is devoid of relationship-such as that of sameness and origination? It can never be cognised. Otherwise if a sentence devoid of all relationship were cognised, --- from any single thing -in the shape of the Jar for instance, all jars would become cognised. This however does not happen. Hence the cognition must be held to follow from & definite relationship (of concomitance).-(1625)
d,
reed. On
The following text further elucidates the incongruities involved :
TEXT (1626)
WHEN THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP-OR WHEN, EVEN THOUGH EXISTENT, THE RELATIONSHIP IS NOT DEFINITELY KNOWN-IF THE OTHER SENTENCE WERE INDICATED, IT WOULD BE UNRELIABLE
(INVALID)-(1626)
COMMENTARY.
The idea really is that there is a relationship between the two sentences.But if, at any time, there is no relationship between one sentence and another, -or if existent, it is not definitely known, and hence is as good as non
