________________
342
TATTYASANORAHA : CHAPTER X.
component yams is only indiroct, figurative, based upon their being its cause ; so thint the use of terms like 'all' would be all right".
The answer to this is provided in the following
TEXT (599). IF THE NAME BR SAID TO BE FIGURATIVE (INDIREOT), THEN THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENCE IN NUMBER. THERE IS ALSO NO DIFFERENCE IN THE COGNITION, WHICH IS ADMITTED BY BOTH
(THOUGH DIREOTLY AND INDIRECTLY).-(599)
COMMENTARY. Tf it is as you say, then there should be difference in number'; i.e. in all cases, the Plaral number should be used-'all Cloths are coloured'; you do not consider it right to tise the Singular number in regard to things that are many.
It might be argued that," when the term 'Cloth' is used in regard to the component yaros, it is in accordance with the number of the composito object, which term Cloth. therefore does not abandon the gender and number of what is denoted by it"
But this also cannot be right; this is what is shown in the second lineThere is also no difference, etc. etc.; if the applying of the name Cloth' is figurative (indirect), then the distinction between the cognition of what is direct and what is indirect would be only a halting ono ; because ng a matter of fact, there is no difference. For instance, whon the expression is used as "all of the cloth is coloured', the idea that it produces is not that what is coloured is not the Cloths, but the yarns that are its constituent cause !
The particle cha' in the Text implies, the following argument : You do not admit that the cloth, being only one, is denoted by the term 'all'; how then can the term 'all', without the term Cloth', be applied to the components, on the basis of the Number of the Cloth ?
Or, the second line may be explained as follows :-The 'bhada', diversity, of the Cognition, is not present in what are regarded as direct' and
indirect'; i.. different colours are not found in the yarns and the Cloth, in the way in which they are found among Colour. Taste, and other things : and when the forms of the two are not found to be different, they cannot be regarded as direct and indirect.-(599)
The following Text introduces the answer given by Shankarastāmin :
TEXT (600). "INASMUCH AS CONJUNCTION IS NOT ALL-EMBRACING IN ITS CHARACTER, THE COLOURING CANNOT BELONG TO ALL THE CLOTH ; NOR
IS THE WHOLE FOUND TO BE COVERED." -(600)
COMMENTARY He argues as follows:-" The colour spoken of as belonging to the Cloth is of the nature Conjunction (contact) with such colouring substances
