________________
1460
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
object is wanting -and it is due to the uncertainty attaching to Porcoptions and Non-perceptions' (Nyayasutra 1. 1. 23).-(3300)
The following might be urged" In no case is it found that the Moans of Cognition are not applicable to both existence and non-existence of a thing".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXTS (3301-3302).
WHEN THERE IS A DEFECT IN THE EYE, THERE IS NO COGNITION, EVEN THOUGH THE THING IS THERE ; AND EVEN WHEN THE EYE IS FREE FROM DEFECTS, THERE IS NO COGNITION, BECAUSE THE THING IS NOT THERE ;-AS IN THE CASE OF THINGS LIKE THE JAR. THUS, INASMUCH AS MERE NON-APPREHENSION (ABSENCE OF COGNITION) IS FOUND IN BOTH CASES, IT IS FAR BETTER TO HOLD THAT IT IS DOUBT THAT ARISES FROM THE NON-APPREHENSION
OF THE OMNISCIENT PERSON.-3301-3302)
COMMENTARY.
Even when the object, Jar for instance, is there, if the man is without the Eye, he has no cognition of it ;-50 also, even when the Eye is porfect, if the object is not there,- in the sense that it is not close by, there is no cognition of it; this clauso has to be construed here also this is just what happens in the case of the Jar which is not there in a suitable place.
'Mere Non-apprehension —i.e. non-apprehension without the qualification of perceptibility of the thing concerned.
Found in both cases i.e. in the case of existence and in the case of non-existence.
* Tat Therefore.
It is far boller, etc. etc. better than searching for a perfect source. For instance, when things have had the idea of their being due to a perfect source cut off by wrong cognition, there may be a desire to look out for the perfect source; as has been declared in the words- Two perceptions describe the junction, and two perceptions give rise to the desire (?) It is for this reason that our Teachers affirm the presence of Doubt in such cases, in the words
If it is asked what is the proof for His existence the answer is that, for this same reason, let the matter remain in Doubt :-(3301-3302)
The following might be urged—"If the Omniscient Person exists, why is He not soon by any one at any time? If the view is that He can never be cognisable by men of limited vision, even so, why is it that no action of His is ever perceived by any one ? Even though the Visual Organ itself is not perceptible, its action, in the shape of the visual perception, is not necessarily inapprehensible".
The answer to this is as follows: