________________
30
MASAAKI HATTORI
try to justify their theory arguing as follows :-“The mind does not operate without previous experience. When a sense operates upon an object, the mind which accompanies the sense is also related to the same external object, and thus the mind recollects its previous awareness of the object."84) Against this we declare that) the mind is unable to have the direct awareness of the external object before (recollecting it). If the mind should be related to the external object, the Sāṁkhya doctrine would be violated. Or, Con the supposition that the mental process of intellectualizing sensory apprehension is deemed to be the recollection, (the mind would) grasp something different (from that which is grasped by the sense.]88) The term 'or' (vā) in the verse is significative of the following alternatives: either the recollection is caused inspite of the lack of previous experience86) concerning the operation of the sense or (the Samkhya doctrine) is violated. (In any case, it is no more reasonable that the mind recollects the operation of the sense without appre. hending it before than that Yajñadatta recollects what has been experienced by Devadatta.]87) Why, then, is the Samkhya doctrine) violated ? If the mind, which is produced simultaneously with the operation of the sense upon the external object, is thought to be apprehensive of the same object), then the Sāṁkhya theory expressed in the following statement will be violated :"In case two senses are operative (simultaneously) for one and the same purpose, then the effectiveness (samarthyatva) of the sense will be lost."88)
84) ibid., 72a,1-2 (81a, 4) : "dban pohi sen pa de yod na / phyi rol gyi don kho na las (=la) yid kyis rjes su sen par byed do" // ses pa bstan bcos kyi don te /
85) K and V are not in accord with each other, while Vk coincides with K as well as with Kk. However, K (Kk, Vk) is quite unreadable. J, 72a2 (81a, 4-5: 'ñams paham' ses pa la sogs pa ste ... gşan mthon ba' ni... appears to be in support of V. but the meaning of 'dran pa' placed before 'ñams paḥam' in V is hardly made out. The translation is based upon V, 'dran pa' being omitted therefrom.
86) Both K and V (Pek. Ed.) read ñams su myon ba' instead of 'nams su ma myon ba'. J, 722,4-5 (81a, 7-8): 'ñams su ma myon ba la dran pa ham' şes pa / ci ste yid kho nas ñams su myon ba dran par ḥdod na / de Itar yin na ñams su ma myon baḥi don la dran par bgyur te / de ni yid kyis sñar ñams su ma myon ba ñid kyis (=kyi) phyir ro /
87) The repudiation of the first alternative is omitted in PSV, but Jinendrabuddhi states as follows: gşan mthon ba' ni dran pa ste / dban poni hjug pas ñams su myon ba ñid kyi phyir dan yid kyis kyan dran par bya ba ñid kyis phyir ro // de yan mi rigs te / Thas byin gyis ñams su myon ba mchod sbyin gyis dran pa ni ma yin pas so ... cf. ), 72a, 5-6).
88) J. 72a,6 (81b,1-2): bstan bcos su bśad pa "ci phyi rol gyi don rnams dban po dań yid dag gis Than cig sen nam se na ma yin şes brjod par byaho // cihi phyir şe na / don goig byed paņi dban po dag rtog pa na nus pa ñid ma yin no" şes paḥo / This must have been stated by those who are in support of the second interpretation of manasa'dhisthita' (cf. above n. 3)) against those who uphold the first interpretation.
