Tattva Sangraha Vol 1

SR No.: 007608
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1937
Total Pages: 753
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 42 MB

Page 336

EXAMINATION OF THE FIRST CATEGORY_SUBSTANCE'.
341
TEXT (595).
“INASMUCH AS THE OBJECT IS OF ONE UNIFORM CHARACTER, TO WHAT WOULD THE USE OF THE TERM sarva' (* ALL') BE DUE ! BECAUSE THAT TERM DENOTES MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL THING, WHILE THE Composite is NOT OF THE NATURE OF MANY IN
DIVIDUALS." -(595)
COMMENTARY.
"As a matter of fact, the term 'all' denotes many more than onethings; while the Composite is not many : how then can the term 'all' be used in reference to it-in such an assertion as all of it would become covered!"-(595)
This argument is answered in the following
TEXTS (596-598). IT IS ONLY SUCH THINGS AS ARE WELL KNOWN IN THE WORLD, SUCH AS Cloth, Body, Mountain AND SO FORTH, THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY YOU AS COMPOSITES ; --AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, ALL MEN MAKE USE OF SUCH EXPRESSIONS AS THE CLOTH IS RED-ALL OF IT
-WHOLE OF IT-IN ITS TOTALITY-COMPLETELY, ENTIRELY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR WHIM.-THUS THE USE OF VERBAL EXPRES. SIONS BEING DEPENDENT UPON THE WHIM OF THE SPEAKER, WE ALSO MAKE USE OF THE EXPRESSION 'all OF THE OBJEOT WOULD BE REDDENED ' ; BECAUSE THERE
CAN BE NO CHECK UPON SPEAKERS.-(596-598)
COMMENTARY,
It is just the well-known things,-like the Cloth, the Body and so forth, -that have been put forward by you as composites; and in regard to all these things the use of such terms as 'one' and 'all' is also well known ; e.g. people are found saying all of this cloth has been coloured' and so forth-Such being the whim of speakers, --when there is a desire to speak of the colouring of things like the cloth-piece which occupy a larger space, we also, on the basis of the ordinary notion, make use of the said expression, for the purpose of bringing out the incongruity involved in your view.
Further, this criticism is applicable to yourself, who regard the gross object as one, --not to us; because we do not regard the gross object to be one.-(596-598)
The following might be urged—"The said criticism cannot apply to us either, because (according to us) the application of the name Cloth' to its