________________
74
ĀLAMBANAPARIKȘĀ
Only this form becomes object of the consciousness of the eye, etc. So it becomes
“the direct object of perception ". If so, why do you not say that cognition of atoms is possessed of combined form ? [You admit that] the atom is of combined form. Why do you not likewise admit that its cognition is also of the combined form ? Why do you only say:
“There exists the combined form in the atom "
[32] This sentence, having the nature of a sentence formulated to that effect, shows as well that their cognitions are possessed of the combined form.of atoms. If so, binary atom has the form of binary atom, how has it combined form ? Only the aggregates of different atoms are admitted in this system of thought; and these aggregates themselves constitute the combined forms. It is for this reason that they are not considered to be] existent in substance. This point has already been mentioned; why is it repeated again? With some other motive it is done so. [That motive is his :] Though the substance-elements are each different in their nature, yet it is to be understood that this combined form is related to their mere collocation. When we analyse it, no more exists the combined form. Moreover, though all things are regarded only as the aggregates of atoms, still each thing has a relative difference, and we may perceive it in each substance. However, the scriptural passage like “What is material element, blue, (etc.), that is the earth element (prthivīdhatu)"
