________________
76
ĀLAMBANAPARIKSĀ
which is common to all ten bases formed by the material elements; hence no fallacy of exclusion of reason from the sapakşadrştanta. Therefore this formulation [of syllogism) is in no way defective. 26
“[Different] perceptions of pot, cup, etc.,
will be identical ” for you who hold thus, (that is, the things are mere aggregates of atoms). For, consciousness does not differ as its object does not differ ; and the sensual -consciousness assumes its form in accordance with the object lying ahead (or in front). The opponent asks: How do you know that there is no difference in the object of consciousness ? The author answers :
“There exists no distinction among the many atoms of pot, cup, etc." [though the number “many" may vary in each casej.
This sentence means this: Though the atoms in their combined forms become objects of our cognition, yet, while the self-nature of the pot, etc., being cognized, there exists even among the many aggregates of atoms, no such character that can distinguish one aggregate of atoms from the other??. Because we do not admit [as real] the combined form distinct in each aggregate, apart from their own real [atomic] forms, the sensual consciousness that has arisen depending upon that form will be identical. It is thereby settled that only the
* The prayoga may be like this: 30a1art a fagfafapet: 1 370त्वात् । यद्यदणु न तद्विज्ञाप्तिविषयः । यथा कठिनतादि.
?Read 3a4fafaitas94 in the Sanskrit text, p. 33, 1. 13 above.
