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 346

EXAMINATION OF THE FIRST CATEGORY
SUBSTANCE'.
361
** In that case, it behoves you to put forward some reasoning in anmılmeut of the said notion; whereby its perceptional character could be rejected. If, even in the absence of such annulling Reason, the notion be not accepted as 'Perception', then, your cognition of oven such things as colour and the like would not bo Perception; as there can be no difference between the two cases."—614-618)
The Author answers the above in the following
TEXT (619).
THAT THE SUBSISTENCE IS NOT THERE 'LAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED ABOVE, IN A GENERAL WAY AS FOR THE NOTION THAT IT SUBSISTS HERDIN, THERE IS NO SUCK COGNITION AT ALL; AS TRIS EXACT FORM DOES NOT APPEAR
IN ANY COGNITION.—(619)
COMMENTARY Under Text 607-the subsistence of one thing in several things has already been rejected above in a goneral way.
As regards the assertion that "the notion that this subsists herein is vouched for by Perception ",--this also is something out of the common ; because, as a matter of fact, among people, no such notion as the Cow subsists in this Horn'. or that the Oloth subsists in the yarns', -ever appears even in men's imagination; the notion that appears is that the Horn is in the Cow', 'the yarns are in the Cloth':-Nor in any Perception does the Oloth ever appear as something different from the yarns; and unless the two were distinguished, thora could be no such notion as that this subsists in that'. For instance, til discriminating persons have actually perceived the water as something distinct from the Pond, they do not have any such notion as there is Water in the Pond'.-(619)
It has been argued (under Te.ct 615 above) that "subsistence either in entirety or in part has not been perceived by you, ete. ete."--This is answered in the following
TEXTS (620-621). WHAT IS MEANT BY (THE QUESTION CONTAINING THE TERMS IN ENTIRETY
AND IN PART' IS—DOES THE SUBSTANCE SUBSIST AS AN IMPARTITE WHOLE, -IN THE WAY IN WHIOH THE BILVATRUTT LIES IN A DISH? OR DOES IT SUBSIST IN SOME OTHER WAY-AS A CERTAIN PERSON, Chaitra, DOES WHEN LYING DOWN ON SEVERAL SEATS ?
-(620-621)
COMMENTARY. What is meant by the term 'in entirety' is-whether the substance subsists in all its Components in its impartite form, -as is found in the case