________________
982
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XXIII.
TEXT (2074).
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE CAN BE NO APPREHENSION OF THE OBJECT FOR ONE WHO HAS NO APPREHENSION OF THE COGNITION; HENCE THERE CAN BE NO APPREHENSION OF THE APPREHENDED OBJECT WITHOUT THE APPREHENSION OF THE
COGNITION.(2074)
COMMENTARY.
The following Text points out the 'Inconclusive character of the Reason adduced (by Kumārila, under Teot 2070, above) that, the Object is clearly perceived as connected with outside space':
TEXT (2075).
The yellow COLOUR IS ALSO CLEARLY PERCEIVED BY PEOPLE WITH DISEASED EYES; AND YET IT IS NOT APPREHENDED AS SOMETHING DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE ELEMENT OF THE APPREHENDING COGNITION. IT SHOULD BE THE SAME IN
THE OTHER CASE ALSO.(2075)
COMMENTARY.
There should be a stop at niskrętam'.
Also';-i.e. just as the real yellow' is clearly perceived as connected with outside space, so also is the yellow clearly perceived by the man with the jaundiced eyes.
Question: "What if it is so perceived ? "
Answer And yet it is, etc. etc.'-There should be a stop after samvedyam na'; and 'niskratam' has to be construed here; and after 'na',
bhavati' is to be understood.Thus the meaning comes to be this --The yellow that is perceived by the man with the diseased eyes does not become apprehended separately, differentiated from the apprehending factor ; and yet it is perceived as 'connected with outside space'. Hence the Reason in question is 'Inconclusive '.
'It should be the same, etc. etc.'-i.e. also in the case of the real yellow'. -What is meant to be shown by this is that the two cases stand on the same footing only so far as being clearly perceived 'is concerned.-(2075)
The following Text supplies the answer to the argument urged (by Kumärila, under 2071, above) that-"People have the notion 'I do not remember, etc. etc.'"