________________
1538
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
"How so?"
Because, etc. etc.'; 'yat' stands for ' ya smat', 'because';--the Cognition after effort, or the successive Cognition, is all not-eternal; just like the Jar and other things;-50 also is the Veda; hence it is a Reason based upon the nature of things. The charges of 'Inadmissibility', etc. against this Reason have been fully refuted under the chapter on the 'Revealed Word'; hence it is not done over again here.
tasya--of the well-known Veda.-(3519-3520)
"But the fact of the other Rescensional Text (put forward) cannot be admitted"-says the Opponent.
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (3521).
IT BEHOVES YOU TO PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE TEXT IN QUESTION IS NOT 'VEDA'; AS OTHERWISE, THE REASON THAT YOU HAVE PUT FORWARD (AGAINST THE OMNISCIENT PERSON) THAT HE IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE 'VEDA' BECOMES DOUBTFUL.
(3521)
COMMENTARY.
Otherwise i.e. if you do not establish the fact that it is not Veda; in that case, what you have asserted regarding the Omniscient Person being not mentioned in the 'Veda', becomes open to doubt and hence 'Inadmissible' (as Reason).-(3521)
It has been argued under Text 3517 that "if the Text in question refers to the Person, then it is not-eternal"-The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (3522).
THE VEDA MAY BE ETERNAL; IT MAY ALSO REFER TO THE OMNISCIENT PERSON. BUT IF IT REFERS TO THE PERSON, WHY SHOULD IT, ON THAT ACCOUNT, BECOME not-eternal ?-"BECAUSE IT WOULD, IN THAT CASE, BE ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT IS PERISHABLE"
- [Says the Opponent]. — (3522)
COMMENTARY.
On being asked Why should it become not-eternal ?'—the Opponent replies-Because it would, etc. etc. -i.e. because it would be associated withrelated to-something that is perishable, evanescent.-(3522)
The following teact points out the 'Inconclusiveness of the Opponent's answer:
