________________
1534
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
TEXT (3508).
IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT WHAT EXISTED IN THE PAST IS NOT THERE IN THE PRESENT BECAUSE THE WHOLE SET OF ITS CAUSES IS NOT PRESENT. WHY SHOULD IT NOT BE THAT SUCH A
PERSON EXISTED IN THE PAST,-LIKE Rama AND OTHERS? (3508)
COMMENTARY.
What truth can there be in any such premiss as that 'what does not exist in the Present could not have existed in the Past'. For instance, the mere fact that Rama, Bharata and others do not exist at the present time cannot justify the inference that they did not exist in the past. Thus, in view of the case of Rama and others, the Reason put forward by the other party is 'Inconclusive'.-(3508)
It has been argued under Text 3186, that-"no Indicative is recognised as part of the Subject which could lead to His inference".
The answer to this is as follows:--
TEXT (3509).
'WISDOM' AND THE REST HAVE BEEN MADE THE 'SUBJECT', AND THEN THE INFERENTIAL INDICATIVE HAS BEEN SET FORTH; HENCE IT IS NOT TRUE THAT 'NO INDICATIVE IS RECOGNISED'.-AND YET WE ARE NOT SEEKING TO PROVE THE existence (OF THE PERSON). (3509)
COMMENTARY.
Under Text 3414 above, Wisdom, etc. have been made the 'subject' of the Reasoning, and the necessary Inferential Indicative has been asserted; hence it is not right to assert that "no Indicative is recognised".
But existence is not what we are proving; all that we are proving is the fact of there being higher stages of the Wisdom, etc.; it is the highest stage of such Wisdom that constitutes 'Omniscience'.-Consequently the objections that have been urged against the proving of the existence of the Omniscient Person are not applicable at all.-(3509)
It has been argued under Text 3187, that-There is no scriptural declaration affirming an eternal Omniscient Person, etc. etc.".
The answer to this is as follows:
C
