________________
328
TATTYASANGRAHA CHAPTER X.
Colour, etc.- is the Cause',-This shows that the inferential Cognition is brought about by the particular indicative mark colled the Effect':-(567)
Another example cited (by the Opponent) is the notion of the cloth in reference to the Red Cloth. The answer to this is as follows
TEXT (568). AS A MATTER OF FACT, SUCH THINGS AS THE RED DYE AND THE SAFFRON PRODUCB A NEW COLOUR IN THE CLOTH, ON THE DESTRUCTION OF THE PREVIOUS COLOUR ; BECAUSE THE CLOTH ITSELI
IS MOMENTARY (AND ITS PREVIOUS COLOUR HAS PERISHED ALONG WITH IT).-(568)
COMMENTARY.
What happens in the case cited is that the Cloth itself being momentary, its previons White Colour is destroyed, and a new Colour comes into existenco through other causal conditions; and when this new Colour is perceived, there appears, on the wake of that Perception, the reflective notion pertaining to the aggregate-as the Cloth, the Cloth with appropriate distinction ; and this notion of the Cloth) is purely illusory, without a real object. Thus the Cognition cited is not of the nature of Perception at all.
Nor is it Inference; as its object is one that has been already apprehended by a previous Perception, and also because it is not & Cognition brought about by means of an Inferential Indicative.
Thus in the case cited there is no Colour that has been suppressed. --(568)
The following might be urged :- "If the original White Colour does not lie hidden in the Cloth, thon how is it that when the Cloth is washed, the White Colour reappears ? "
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (569). WHAT KAPPENS IS THAT OUT OF ONE COLOUR (RED) ANOTHER WHITE COLOUR IS PRODUCED THROUGH THE INTERVENTION OF WATER AND SUCH OTHER THINGS JUST LIKE THE BLACK
COLOUR OF METALS.—(569)
COMMENTARY.
Just as, in the case of Metals which have become bright white by the contact of Fire, the Dark Colour is again subsequently produced, -80 in the case in question also, another White Colour is produced in the Cloth. Hence there is no incongruity at all.-(569)