________________
970
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XXII.
TEXT (2039). IP THE COGNITION WERE ENTIRELY LIKE THE OBJECT, THEN IT WOULD HAVE THE CHARACTER OF Non-Cognition (IGNORANCE), ETC. IF THERE IS ONLY PARTIAL LIKENESS, THEN EVERY COGNITION SHOULD APPREHEND EVERY
OBJECT.-(2039)
COMMENTARY.
Character of Non-cognition i.e. being of the nature of the unconscious.
Etcetera'-is meant to include negation of attachment, negation of hatred and so forth.-(2039)
The following Text proceeds to deal with the third alternative view (suggested in Text 1999)—that "Cognition envisages something else":
TEXT (2040). HOW CAN THE COGNITION ENVISAGING (HAVING THE FORM OF) ONE OBJECT APPREHEND ANOTHER OBJECT? IF IT DID SO, EVERYTHING WOULD BE APPREHENDED BY EVERY COGNITION; AND THERE WOULD BE NO BASIS FOR
RESTRIOTION.—(2040)
COMMENTARY
It might be urged that—" when a Cognition is produced by a certain Object, it apprehends only that Object, and thus every Object could not be apprehended by every Cognition ".
The answer to this is- There would be no basis for restriction'; that is, even the Eye, etc. would become apprehended':-(2040)
The following Text presents Bhadanta-Shubhagupta's answer to the above
.
TEXT (2041). “JUST AS YOUR COGNITION, WHICH IS FORMLESS in reality, APPREHENDS FORMS WHICH ARE NON-OBJECTIVE, IN THE SAME WAY WOULD
IT APPREHEND ALL THINGS."-(2041)
COMMENTARY.
Bhadanta Shubhagupta has argued as follows "According to you, Idealists, Cognition is really formless, -as is clear from such assertions as Cognition is held to be non-elemental, like the purity of Gold and Akasha';
