________________
48
We do not hold that s are abosolutely beyond the range of perception in all circumstances. We rather hold that they do become perceptible in a certain condition, viz, when they are close together so as to cooperate in one group( विशिष्टावस्था प्राप्तानामणूनामिन्द्रियग्राह्यत्वादतीन्द्रियत्वमसिद्धमिति । तथाहि परस्परा विनिर्भागवर्तितया सहकारितावशादुप्तन्नाः परमाणवोऽध्यक्षतामुपयान्त्येवेति । नहि सर्वदेवेन्द्रियातिक्रान्तस्वरूपाः परमाणवः क्षणिकवादिभिरभ्युपगम्यन्ते । - Panjika ) Another possible objection: How do you then explain the unity of the object as perceived ? ( एकः पट इति कथं प्रत्ययः ? ) Answer: The many (atoms) are too small to be perceived as distinct entities and hence the illusion; e. g; a light is constantly changing, a new flame coming into existence every moment, and yet it appears to be permanent owing to the fact that the different flames are very much like one another and follow in quick succession. ( अनेकसूक्ष्मतरपदार्थसंवेदनत एवैक इति विश्रामेत्पत्तेः । प्रदीपादौ नैरन्तर्योत्पन्न सदृशापरापरज्वालादिपदार्थ संवेदनेऽप्येकत्वविश्रमवत् - Panjika) Objection: While the distinction of the ga remains unpreceived, how can the gs themselves be perceived, even in the condition and in the form of an अवयविन् (ननु भेदेनानुपलक्ष्यमाणाः परमाणवः कथमध्यक्षाः ? Panjika).
Answer: If in consequnes of the distinction being unpereceived a thing is to remain unperceived, a light would have to be regarded as unperceived because the distinction of the light (which in reality is a series of lights in quick succession) is unperceived! Therefore in our view the 4s are pereceived although their distinctions are not, thus appearing illusorily as one instead of many. ( विवेकेनानवधार्यमाणस्त्यामध्यक्षत्वे प्रदीपादौ पूर्वापरविभागेनानुपलक्ष्यमाणेऽनष्यक्षता प्रसक्तेः) Moreover, will you tell how even on your hypothesis an अवयविन् could be perceived ( प्रत्यक्ष ) though the distinction of the as are admittedly unperceived ? (अवयवानां विभागानुपलक्ष्यत्वे अवयवव्यपि कथं त्वया प्रत्यक्षत्वेनेष्टः ? - Panjika Note- Read कथं त्वया 'for कथम् तथा ). Furthermore, I challenge you to get over the following dilemma: Conceding for the sake of argument that there is an अवयविनू in addition to the अवयवs which appear as an external object, may I know whether the body--which possesses (gross) size is one or many ? Supposing it is one, is it made out of one component part or
