________________
DHARMAPĀLA'S COMMENTARY 75 is to be interpreted as a sentence intended to demonstrate the Truth. . . .25
If so, how is it that atoms are not perceived by senses ? and how are they perceived only by the knowl-- edge of Tathatā, Suchness ? [The opponent continues :).
“The atomic form becomes no object of the (sensual] consciousness”.
This does not become object of the sensual consciousness; hence it is beyond the senses. The object which does not fall within the operation of senses, ought to be cognized only by the knowledge penetrating into Suchness. What is the argument for such an assumption? It is simply this : the atomic form never comes within the range of direct perception ;
" just like its solidity and other attributes." Blue and other colours
"though really existent in atoms, do not become objects of the visual and other consciousness."
[33] Because the powers of senses are related to particular objects (only, not to all].
“So also atomic form." This is not contradicted, but consented to by both parties. The opponent objects : Let the atomic form appear as perceptible and not solidity, because they, both differ one from the other in nature. We reply : That property [of atoms] is accepted as probans
* Since the exact Sanskrit equivalent of the Chinese expression, chi chih is not ascertainable, the passage, garan... JETT: is left untranslated.
