________________
DIGNĀGA'S CRITICISM OF THE SAMKHYA THEORY OF PERCEPTION
25
(58...
...58)
(V...
V
tations of atoms,]36) and there must be infinite number of senses.
Eb.57) (Indeed, Mādhava's theory is considered to be) superior to the old (Samkhya) doctrine inasmuch as propounding that sukha etc. vary in kind with classes of sense and object, but we shall state (our interpretation of his theory) with much lucidity. Each atom is of a definite nature : (sukha-atom, duḥkhaatom etc., sound-atom, tangible-atom etc., atom of auditory sense, that of tactual sense etc. are essentially different from each other in nature. At the time of evolution, homogeneous atoms aggregate and become manifested as objects and senses. However, prior to evolution) they exist dispersedly and, in this state,) they are called pradhana (primordial matter).59) Sukha, duḥkha and moha or sound, tangible etc., (when evolving from atoms,) are distinguished from each other in accordance with the difference of class, and atoms which are capable of becoming all of these [by combining themselves together) are called pradhāna80) (in the state prior to evolution. Various) effects are produced according as (atoms are differently combined (samprayoga-vićesa). Thus in accordance with varying combinations of atoms, various objects, which are not beyond the extent of a certain class, Care produced, and these effects are recognized as objects of senses).
Ec.61) (However, Mādhava is of the opinion that each atom is not of one nature but is composed of three guņas.62>) In case an atom should be possessed of three natures, how could we recognize the effect, (which is the aggregation of atoms,) as being of one (nature)? (For example,) when the sound is heard, the cognition produced is of a single phase as is expressed by words: 'this is sound' and it lacks (three different phases, such as) sukha etc. But the cognition of a single phase cannot be produced when the object is of various
56) J. 665.1 (746,7): sgra so so la gsum po gşan dan gşan yin cin / dehi phyir na gsum po rnams man po ñid kyi phyir man poņi tshig go / cf. n. 55).
57) Cf. ibid., 67a, 1-67b.2 (75a,8-76a,2).
58) Both K and V are unreadable, and I gives no explanation. The above translation has been given provisionally.
59) While Mādhava maintains that each atom is composed of three gunas, cf. J, 66b, 2-4, herein the atom is said to have one definite nature. In other points, the above interpretation dose not essentially differ from Madhava's theory, cf. above n. 55) and below Ee.
60) Cf. J. 67a, 4-5 (75b,4-5): rdul phra rab kyi rdzas gcig kho na thams cad du son ba yod pa ma yin gyi/hon kyan rdul phra rab de rnams kho na grans med pa rnams thams cad du yod la/ rigs gcig pa can ni de rnams kyi gtso bo şes br jod par byed par hgyur ro șes ston to /
61) Cf. ibid., 675,2-682,3 (76a, 2-766,5).
62) Cf. ibid., 666,2 (746,8): sgrahi rdul phra rab gcig kho na gum po ste / rdzas gsum gyi bdag nid yin te / See above n. 55) and 59).
