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 638

EXAMINATION OF THE DEFINITION OF " SENSE-PERCEPTION". 643
TEXTS (1280-1281). OF THE PARTICULAR THINGS THERE IS NO OTHER CHARACTERISTIC EXCEPT THAT OF BEING 'PARTICULAR' (OR DISTINCT'); HOW THEN CAN THERE BE ANY APPREHENSION OF THEM WHICH DOES NOT ENVISAGE TRE DISTINCT' FORM! EVEN IF THEIR FORMS ARE ENVISAGED, THEY ARE APPREHENDED ONLY AS DISTINCT FROM OTHER PARTICULARS; SO THAT THEIR PERCEPTION WOULD BE CONCEPTUAL'.
- (1280-1283)
COMMENTARY There is no Particular' apart from the various Things. If then, the Particular were not envisaged in the apprehension of the Universal, how could the various Things be apprehended ? That is to say, being non-different from the nature of what is not apprehended, the Particulars also would be not-apprehended.
If it be held that the various Things are apprehended, then, if these forms are envisaged, -and are apprehended, the Particular also would be apprehended, being, as it is, non different from what has been apprehended. So that, in regard to these varions things, the Cognition that is held to be apprehensive of the Universal turns out to be conceptual.-(1280.1281)
Further, it may be that the Universal being non-different from the Particulars, it may not be distinguished' from those ; even so, the Universal would certainly be distinguished' from such featureless non-entities as the 'Hare's Horn'; and it would thus become apprehensible by Conceptual Perception ; and yet it is not so; hence your reason remains Inconclusive,
This is what is pointed out in the following
TEXTS (1282-1283). THE UNIVERSAL IS COGNISED AS DISTINGUISHED' (DISTINOT) FROM THE featureless THING; HENCE FOR YOU, IT SHOULD BE COGNISABLE BY CONCEPTUAL PERCEPTION.-IF IT BE URGED THAT "THE UNIVERSAL CANNOT BE REGARDED AS distinguished FROM A NON-ENTITY”,-THEN (WE ASK) IS IT OF THE SAME NATURE AS THE NON-ENTITY ? IF NOT, THEN WHY IS IT NOT ADMITTED THAT IT IS DIS
TINGUISHED FROM IT -(1282-1283)
COMMENTARY.
The following might be urged :-"There can be no distinction made between the Universal and the Non-entity; nor can there be any similarity