________________
350
TATTWASANGRAHA: CHAPTER X.
TEXTS (614-618).
"WHENEVIR A REASON IS ADDUCED, EITHER DIRECTLY OR IN THE POEM OP Reductio ad Absurdum, -IT BECOMES TRULY APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN IT IS ITSELF APPREHENDED NOT OTHERWISE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, SUBSISTENCE EITHER in whole or in part HAS NEVER BEEN PERCEIVED (BY YOU, BUDDHISTS), -ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF WHICH IN THE SUBSTANCE, THE SUBSTANOR COULD BE HELD TO BD NON-EXISTENT, OR SOMETHING ELSE.-IY, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUCH SUBSISTENCE HAS BEEN PERCEIVED BY YOU ANYWHERE, THEN IT CANNOT BE DENIED IN THE CASE OF THE SUBSTANOE AND SUCH THINGS.IP THE SAID SUBSISTENCE HAS NOT BEEN PERCEIVED, THEN THE QUESTEON DOES NOT ARISE REGARDING THE DISTINCTION; ALL THAT COULD BE ASSERTED WOULD BE THAT THE SUBSISTENCE IS NOT THERE, AND THIS WOULD NOT BE RIGHT ; AS IT IS SOMETHING DIRECTLY PERCEIVED; AS IS CLEAR IN SUCH NOTIONS AS THIS subsists HERE'-IT IT BE KELD THAT THE FACT OF THIS BEING DIREOT PERCEPTION IS NOT ADMITTED, THEN SOME ANNULLING REASONINO SHOULD BE PUT FORWARD. OTHERWISE, EVEN SUCH COGNITIONS AS THOSE OF COLOUR AND SUCH THINGS MIGUT
CEASE TO BE OF THE NATURE OF PERCEPTION'."-(61+618)
COMMENTARY.
Shankarasuámin argues as follows -" Whenever a Reason is adduced, - either directly or in the form of a Reductio ad absurdum,it becomes applic. able only when it is itself perceived; otherwise it would be open to the charge of being proven'. As a matter of fact, you have not anywhere por. ceived the subsistence of anything either in its entirety or in part ;-hence on the basis of the absence of such subsistence, it does not behove you to regard the composite) substance as non-existent. Or—if it were possible then there would be something else-Component and Composite.
If such subsistence has been perceived by you anywhere, then it could be the same in the case of the Substance, etc. also, which, therefore, cannot be denied.-If, however, the said subsistence has not been perceived, then there does not arise any question regarding the distinction-as to whether the subsistence is in entirety or in part; because it is only when the object itself has been admitted that anything can be denied in regard to it. When however the objeot itself is not admitted, then it is better to deny the object itself, 30 that the assertion should be in the form that there is no subsistence, and not the denial of any particular character in regard to it. But such an assertion-us that there is no subsistence at all'-would not be proper : because the subsistence of the Composite in the components is vouched for by direct Perception.
Question :- What is that Perception ?
"Answer - It is in the form This subsists here' ;-i.e. the Perception is in the form- This-Oloth-subsists in the yaras'.
"It might be argued that this notion cannot be regarded as Perception.
