________________
1496
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI. established by any Means of Right Cognition ; in fact it has been rejected in detail". (3370)
The answer to the above is as follows:
TEXTS (3371-3373). OUR ANSWER IS AS FOLLOWS:-IF SPEAKERSHIP' BY ITSELF, IS MEANT TO BE THE REASON, THEN IT IS ONE WHOSE substratum is unknown, -OR ITS 'INADMISSIBILITY' IS SUSPECTED. IN FACT, THE EXACT CONNOTATION OF THE WORD BEING DOUBTFUL, THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT IS ONE WHOSE INADMISSIBILITY' IS SUSPECTED. CONSEQUENTLY, IF YOU HAVE TO URGE SUCH AN ARGUMENT, YOU CAN DO SO ONLY AS A Reductio ad absurdum.-AND IN SUCH AN ARGUMENT WHAT HAS TO BE URGED MUST BE WHAT IS KNOWABLE ONLY FROM THE SCRIPTURES (OF THE OTHER PARTY); AND THERE CAN BE NO OTHER MEANS OF PROVING ITS EXISTENCE.-(3371-3373)
COMMENTARY.
There are only two alternative views possible-(1) 'speakership' may be a Reason, independently by itself-or (2) it may be in the nature of a Reductio ad absurdum.-Under the former viow, tho substratum of the qualification would be "unknown'; hence the Reason would be "unknown', "inadmissible'. If the substratum is meant to be, not qualified, but in general, even so, until the speakership' has been proved to the satisfac. tion of the other party, its admissibility must romain doubtful; in accordance with the principle that a reason can prove a conclusion only when it is itself admitted by both parties.
Asya'i.e. of 'speakership.
Thus in order to avoid this difficulty, you have to adınit that what you have urged is only a Reductio ad absurdum. But even as regards this Reductio ad Absurdum, what has to be put forward as the Reason is only that character which cannot bear any scrutiny and what is knowable only from the scriptures of the other party; as the putting forward of such a Reason would expose the self-contradiction on the part of the opponent ;-and no attempt should be made to prove such a character; as that could serve no useful purpose.
And so far as the case in question is concerned, speakership is not a character knowable only from the scriptures of the other party. So that your Reason romains 'Inadmissible' under both alternatives.-(3371-3373)
The following Teata sum up the author's position and point out that the assertions of the opponents are contrary to the real state of things:
