Tattva Sangraha Vol 2

SR No.: 007609
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1939
Total Pages: 887
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 84 MB

Page 256

EXTERNAL WORLD.'
981
been explained that there is Cognition of the Apprehended Object, even when there is no Cognition of the Apprehending Cognition. Hence the Reason 'Because it is not apprehended on the apprehension of the other' becomes established and hence 'admissible'."-(2070)
Question :-How are the second and subsequent Reasons (urged under Texts 2065 et. seq.) proved and admissible ?
Answer S
TEXTS (2071–2073).
" As A MATTER OF FACT, PEOPLE HAVE SUCH NOTIONS AS 'I DO NOT RE
MEMBER IF ANY OBJEOT WAS APPREHENDED BY ME AT THE TIME, WHICH SHOWS THAT THEY REMEMBER THE APPEARANCE OF THE APPREHENDING COGNITION, WITHOUT ANY IDEA OF THE APPREHENDED OBJECT. IF THE TWO WERE NON-DIFFERENT, THERE WOULD BE REMEMBRANCE OF THE APPREHENDED OBJECT ALSO, WHEN THERE IS REMEMBRANCE OF THE APPREHENDING COGNITION ;-AS A MATTER OF FACT HOWEVER, THERE IS IDEA OF THE APPREHENDING COGNITION ONLY. THUS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO BECOMES PROVED BY POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CONCOMITANCE. THUS ALL THESE REASONS BECOME ESTABLISHED AS RESIDING IN THE MINOR TERM." - [Shlokavārtika-Shanyavāda, 83-85).-(2071-2073)
COMMENTARY.
The Remembrance of the Apprehending Cognition is found to appear even without the remembrance of the Apprehended Object ;-if there were absolute non-difference between the two, then there would be remembrance of the Apprehended Object also,-just as there is, of the Apprehending Cognition; -hence as they do not share the same fate, the Apprehended Object and the Apprehending Cognition must be different from one another.
It might be urged that there is remembrance of the Apprehended Object also '.-The answer to that is- As a matter of fact, however, etc. etc.'.
Tatra'-At the time that there is Remembrance of the Apprehending Cognition. Esa eva',-i.e. the Apprehending Cognition alone, not the Apprehended Object. The particle ēva' is misplaced.
By positive and negative concomitance '-as between the presence and absence of the Remembrances of the Apprehended Object and the Apprehend. ing Cognition; as there is absence of the Remembrance of the Apprehended Object even when there is presence of the Remembrance of the Apprehending Cognition.-(2071-2073)
The above arguments (of Kumārila) are answered in the following:
16