Tattva Sangraha Vol 2

SR No.: 007609
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1939
Total Pages: 887
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 84 MB

Page 637

1362
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXV.
vision, hence there can be no certainty relating to them; this would mean that there is no certainty relating to the absence of defects also ;-and uncertain also is the absence of the two kinds of Invalid Cognition ; so that Validity could not be established on the basis of Excellence, otc. If there (Excellence, etc.) help in the matter by their mere presence, then there could be no Cognition to the contrary:-all this host of objections would be applicable to all cases.(3057-3058)
Further, Kumarila's assertion quoted above-"therefore from Excellences follows the Absence of Defects, etc, etc."-has declared validity, and also the absence of the two kinds of Invalid Cognition and the Absence of Defects,-- part and parcel of the certainty.-Now the absence' here spoken of can be either (a) of the nature of 'absolute negation of what is possible', or of the nature of relative negation'; these are the only two alternatives possible.
The following Text points out the objections against the first alternative (that it is of the nature of absolute negation) :
TEXTS (3059-3060).
THE ASSERTION THAT "THERE IS VALIDITY WHEN THERE IS Absence of • Defects" CONTAINS A negation; IF THIS NEGATION IS MEANT TO BE
absolute; THEN IT CAN NEVER BE PROVED.-IT CANNOT BE PROVED BY apprehension, BECAUSE IT IS OF THE NATURE OY NEGATION ;-NOR CAN IT BE PROVED BY Non-apprehension, AS THAT WOULD INVOLVE AN INFINITE
REGRESS.—(3059-3060)
COMMENTARY.
If it is Absolute Negation that is meant, then it cannot be provod. Because would such Negation be proved by itself ? or by something else? If it is proved by itself, (1) would it be due to its being of the nature of selfillumination'? or (2) to the fact of its bringing about certainty ?-If it is proved by something else, is it proved, (3) by Apprehension ? or (4) by Non-apprehension 1-These are the alternative views possible.
(1) Now, it cannot be right to assert that it is proved by itself, through its being self-luminous '; because it is a non-entity, while luminousness is the property of entities; it is Cognition alone that is proved by its own spprehension, on account of its being self-luninous' by nature not so Negation, which is of the nature of the denial of the nature of things.
(2) Nor can the Negation be regarded as proved by itself, through bring. ing about certainty. Because as a matter of fact, Negation is devoid of all capacity: hence it cannot bring about anything. fI it did bring about any. thing, it would have to be regarded as an Entity: and secondly, as it would not be possible for it to have any new peculiarity produced in it, its effect would be such as comes about from it itself, independently of all contributory causes, and hence the appearance of such an effect would be incessant.