________________
1462
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
Then again, it has been pointed out before that the Means of Cognition cannot be the cause 'or the pervader of things; how then, can the absence of Inforence-which is neither the cause nor the pervader of the thing in question (the Omniscient Person), lead to the absence of that thing? -
The compound 'ahētvavyäpakam' is Copulative-what is not cause• nor pervader'.
Nor can it be asserted that," when the Means of Cognition called Inference ' is inoperative,-even though it is neither the Cause' nor the • Pervader of the thing concerned,--the thing is actually found to be nonexistent; and there can be nothing incongruous in what is actually seen".
In view of such an assertion, the Text adds. Even then the Inference is not possible, elc. etc.'.-Even when the Inference is not there, the thing in question has been found to exist; as in the case of the Red-hot Iron-Ball; as has been pointed out already.-(3303-3306)
Having thus shown in detail that there is no possibility of any proof in support of the non-existence of the Omniscient Person, the author sums up his view :
TEXT (3307).
THUS, THEN, THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN SET ASIDE THE EXISTENCE OF THE OMNISCIENT PERSON; THE PROOF IN SUPPORT OF HIS EXISTENCE IS GOING TO BE ADDUCED LATER ON.
(3307)
COMMENTARY.
It might be argued that" as there is no proof for setting aside the Person, so you have none in support of His existence".
The answer to this is that the proof in support, etc. etc. (3307)
It has been argued by the other party under Text 3138, that"If an attempt were made to prove that one has the knowledge of the details of all the individuals and components of the whole world, it would be futile".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (3308).
IT IS WITH A TOTALLY DIFFERENT MOTIVE THAT THE WISE BUDDHISTS MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH THE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THINGS,
-EVEN THOUGH SUCH ATTEMPT PROVE FUTILE.-(3308)
COMMENTARY.
With a different motive
with another intention.-(3308)
Question.-"What is that motive ?" Answer:
