Alamban Pariksha

Author(s): Dinnaga, Dharmapala, N Aiyaswami Shastri
Publisher: Adyar Library

Page 69

ENGLISH TRANSLATION
:
45
3c-d. The 17 atomic form does not become the object of consciousness just like the attributes such as solidity, etc.
Just as the attributes, solidity and others, though existent in atoms, are not perceived by the visual consciousness, so also the atomic form ".
4a-b. In that case, the [different] perceptions of a pot, cup, etc. will be identical ''.
Though the atoms of a pot are greater in number and that of a cup [less], there exists no distinction whatever amongst the atoms ”.
produces the perception manifesting itself as if it is a combination. It is, one asserts, the two parts of the perceivable objects (ālambanasya dvibhāga) which lack in the two lprevious] propositions. When one says that the existence of cause produces the perception, he asserts the causality. When one says that what manifests itself as if a combination (produces the perception), he supposes the form, and he proves the reality (astitva) of the state of combination.
17 If there is in the atoms the state of combination which is their gross character, how can one call them atoms? [The opponent continues the following).
16 It is so because the powers of the organs are differently affected (pratiniyata). Likewise, though there are atoms) they are no longer (capable of being object of the visual perception).
19 The author, wishing to refute the third proposition, asks: What state of combination do you want to assert in the atoms?, (and he adds :) In all cases, it is well-known that the vase and cup, etc., are combinations (of atoms). In such case, what state exists in the atoms? If you say : “It is the state of vase," the perception of vase will arise in all the combinations of the cup, etc. If you say: “It is the state of the cup," the perception of the cup will arise in all (the combinations of the vase, etc.). Therefore the [different] perceptions (prthagbuddhi) called in certain case“ perception of the vase ” and in some other case “perception of the cup” will not arise.
20 The opponent says: With regard to the vase, atoms are numerous : with regard to the cup, they are a few; one recognises