________________
1458
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
TEXT (3296). EVEN IF THERE BE NO INFERENCE, THAT ALONE CANNOT BRING ABOUT CERTAINTY REGARDING non-existence (OF THE OMNISCIENT PERSON); AS IN THE CASE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE FIRE WHICH HAS NOT YET BEGUN TO EMIT ITS EFFECT IN THE SHAPE OF
Smoke.-(3296)
COMMENTARY.
It has been explained before that Proof (Means of Cognition) cannot be the cause of things; nor can it be their pervader ; how then can the absence of Proof mean the absence of the Thing? For instance, in the case of the Fire in the heated Iron-ball, while its effect in the shape of Smoke has not begun to appear, and it is still hidden inside a hut, there is no Inference of it, because the Inferential Indicative (in the shape of Smoke) is not there; and yet its existence does not coase (on that account),--and there can be no certainty regarding its non-existence; in the same manner, in the proving of the Existence of the Omniscient Person, if there is no Inference, that makes the matter only doubtful.
That alone that is, mere absence of Inference.
Asamarabdha, etc. etc.'-That Fire which has not begun to bring about its effect in the shape of smoke; in regard to the existence of this fire, there can be no certainty--(3296)
In the following Texts, the other Party shows that in the case of the hot Iron-ball, the root of the Doubt lies in Apprehension, while in the case of the Omniscient Person, there is no Apprehension at all, hence there can be no reason for any doubt ; and thus the Reason put forward by the Buddhist is Inconclusive :
TEXTS (3297-3298).
" IN THE CASE OF A THING THAT HAS BEEN APPREHENDED AT SOME TIME OR THE OTHER, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE MAY BE DOUBT; AS FOR INSTANCE, IN THE CASE OF THE POST, WHICH PARTAKES OF THE NATURE OF BOTH FACTORS (OF THE DOUBT) ; BECAUSE THE POST AND THE MAN HAVE BOTH BEEN SEEN SOMEWHERE, THEREFORE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE SHOULD BE DOUBT AS TO ITS BEING THIS OR THAT. THE OMNISCIENT PERSON, HOWEVER, HAS NEVER BEEN THUS PERCEIVED." -
(3297-3298)
COMMENTARY
When a certain thing has been seen somewhere previously-in regard to that alone, there may be doubt-e.g. in regard to the Post,--and not in
