[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Philosophy](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana) › [General works and doxographies](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all) › [Sarvadarshanasangraha](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.sarvadarsanasangraha) › 12.22 # Sarvadarshanasangraha 12.22 Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha 12.22 - **Language:** Sanskrit ### [12.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.sarvadarsanasangraha.12.22) vicāraśāstram avaidhatvenānārabdhavyam iti pūrvapakṣo vaidhatvenārabdhavyam iti rādhāntaḥ/ tatra vaidhatvaṃ vadatā vaditavyaṃ kim adhyāpanavidhir māṇavakasyārthāvabodham api prayuṅkte kiṃ vā pāṭhamātram/ nādyaḥ/ vināpy arthāvabodhenādhyāpanasiddheḥ/ na dvitīyaḥ/ pāṭhamātre vicārasya viṣayaprayojanayor asaṃbhavāt/ āpātataḥ pratibhātaḥ saṃdigdho 'rtho vicāraśāstrasya viṣayo bhavati/ tathā sati yatrārthāvagatir eva nāsti tatra saṃdehasya kā kathā/ vicāraphalasya nirṇayasya pratyāśā dūrata eva/ tathā ca yad asaṃdigdham prayojanaṃ tat prekṣāvatpratipatsāgocaraḥ/ yathā samanaskendriyasaṃnikṛṣṭaḥ spaṣṭālokamadhyam adhyāsīno ghaṭa iti nyāyena viṣayaprayojanayor asaṃbhavena vicāraśāstram anārabhyam iti pūrvaḥ pakṣaḥ/ > Now the primâ facie argument was that the study of Mīmāṃsā, not being authoritatively enjoined, is not to be commenced; the "conclusion" was that it is to be commenced as being thus authoritatively enjoined. > — Edward Byles Cowell & Archibald Edward Gough 1882, The Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha, or Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy > Now the upholders of the former or primâ facie view argue as follows:—"We put to the advocates of the conclusion the following dilemma: Does the injunction to teach imply that the pupil is to understand the meaning of what is read, or does it only refer to the bare reading? It cannot be the former, for obviously the act of teaching cannot depend for its fulfilment on the pupil's understanding what is taught \[as this will depend on his ability as a recipient\]; and the latter will not help you, as, if the bare reading is sufficient, the Mīmāṃsā discussions in question will have no subject or use. For their proper subject is a point in the Veda, which is doubted about from having been only looked at in a rough and impromptu way; now if there is no need of understanding the meaning at all, why should we talk of doubts and still more of any hope of ascertaining the true meaning by means of laborious discussion? And therefore in accordance with the well-known principle, 'That which is a thing of use and not a matter of doubt is an object of attainment to an intelligent man, as, for instance, a jar which is in broad light and in contact with the external and internal senses,' as there is in the present case no such thing as a subject to exercise it upon, or a useful end to be attained by it, we maintain that the study of Mīmāṃsā is not to be commenced." > — Edward Byles Cowell & Archibald Edward Gough 1882, The Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha, or Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy - [Previous: 12.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.sarvadarsanasangraha.12.21) - [Next: 12.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.sarvadarsanasangraha.12.23) - [Up: 12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.sarvadarsanasangraha.12) ## Translations (2) - [The Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha, or Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.sarvadarsanasangraha~en-cowell.12.p11) — Edward Byles Cowell & Archibald Edward Gough 1882, English - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.sarvadarsanasangraha~en-mt.12.22) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.sarvadarsanasangraha.12.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.all.sarvadarsanasangraha.12.22) · Pramāṇa