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 447

1172
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
the case where there is no perception of a thing which is quite perceptible. For instance, in the present context, there is absolutely no cognitioneither successive or simultaneous of the Air that has reached the regions of the Auditory Organ. Hence the explanation that "the illusion of simultaneity of Cognitions is due to the quickness with which they appear" can have no bearing on the present discussion ; i.e. it should be ignored.-(2533)
The following text takes up the second alternative view (suggested in the commentary on Text 2531,--that the Air is not perceptible) :
TEXT (2534).
IF THE AIR (REACHING THE EAR) IS BEYOND THE SENSES (IMPERCEPTIBLE), AS ASSERTED BY THE FOLLOWERS OF Kanāda, AND ALSO BY YOURSELVES,THEN, TO WHAT CAN ITS amenability to Touch BE DUE, WHICH HAS BEEN SPOKEN OF IN
THE Bhāşya !-(2534)
COMMENTARY.
Followers of Kanāda'-the Vaishēşikas ; according to whom Air is indicated by (inferred from) Sound.
The author of your own Bhäsya, Shabara has also declared that “when the aerial Conjunctions and Disjunctions of the imperceptible Air proceed from the Ear-drum, they are not perceived ". (Mi. Sü. 1. . 13.)
The objection to this view is set forth in the words- To what can its amenability to Touch be due ?'- Sprstyāpti' is the 'apti' possibility of
prsti-touch. This is what the author of your Bhasya has spoken of; how is that? As against the view of the author of the Shiksă, that 'the Air becomes the Sound', the author of the Bhäsya (Shabara) has said-(under So. 1. 1. 22) as follows-“If the Word-Sound were the product of Air, then it could only be Air in a particular shape; as a matter of fact, however, we do not recognise any particle of Air in the constitution of the Word-Sound, in the manner in which we recognise the particles of yarn in the constitution of the Cloth; therefore the Word-Sound cannot be a product of Air if the Word-Sound were the product of Air, then we could perceive it with our tactile organ (as we perceive Air); and yet we do not feel by touch any air-particles in the Word-Sound":-(Translation, p. 41.)(2634)
Even granting (for the sake of argument) that Air is beyond the senses, imperceptible,-the Author proceeds to point out defects in the Opponent's arguments -