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 339

344
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER X.
Then again, what is the meaning of the assertion that * Conjunction is not all-pervasivo " -If it means that it does not pervade over all (whole) of the sultance, then it cannot be right; because it has been held that the term "all cannot apply to the substance-If it means that " Conjunction sub. sists only in a part of its substratum", -that also cannot be right; as there can be no * part of it-It may be said that what is meant is that "it subsists in a component making up the substance" if that be go, then, inasmuch as what has been coloured are only the components (where alone the contact of the Dye subsists), the colour of the composite would not be red at all; so that what should be perceived should be coloured and not-coloured, at one and the same time-Further, what is called the component making up the substance - if that is of the same form as the composite itsell,then the Conjunction that would subsist there would also subsist only in a part of that component (as Conjunction is non-perusive, ex hypothesi); so that the objection would be equally applicable to this also.--If, on the other hand, the component be held to be of the form of the Atom, then, inasmuch as Atoms are beyond the reach of the senses, the Oonjunction subsisting therein would also be beyond the reach of the senses, so that there could be no perception of the Red colour at all.
The Opponent might argue thus :-* Pervasion is the name givon to that character whereby the shape of the finger is perceived only on the perception of the whole finger; hence when Conjunction is said to be mol-pervasive, what is meant is that in its case it is not that it is perceivod only on the perception of its substratum".
This is not right. As a mattor of fact, Conjunction is never perceived while its substratum is not perceived; 0.g. tho Conjunction between the Jar and the Ghost (which is not perceived because the Ghost is not seen). Thus then, under this explanation, the colour also would not be perceived; it should be regarded to be perceptible only when its substratuin is perceived ; and hence that also would be pervasive in character.
Says the Opponent:"Even when the substance inhering (subsisting) in the other un-coloured components is perceived, there is no perception of the colour, which consists in Conjunction; hence even when its substratum (in the form of the substance) is perceived, the Conjunction is not perceived (and this is what makes it non-pervasive in character] ".
This is not right. In this way, there being only one substance inhering in components some of which are coloured and some un-coloured, even though a component might be coloured, the Colour would be not-perceived (in the Thing) through that perception of colour' ; because even though the substratum would be perceptible, the colour would be imporceptible. Nor is there any other way of perceiving the Conjunction, except the perception of its substratum.
From all this it follows that there is no object' which is of one form. Even when of various forms,-on the strength of being itself, -the difference can lie only in the form of the aggregation of Aloms; specially as the number of possible components can never be one.
Thus it is proved that the Jar and such things exist only in the form of