________________
454
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER xv.
'Those two'-the Hill and the Tree.
In these ;- in the Stones and in the Branches. Question-" There are many such well-known notions among people as The Colour, Taste, Odour, Touch, and Action in the Jar'; what could be the basis of such a notion, except Inherence ?"
Answer:- What such notions, etc. etc. Identity, i.e. Being of the nature of the Jar; this is what is apprehended by the said notion, or by men. When Colour is spoken of as in the Jar', what is meant is that the Colour is of the nature of the Jar, not that it is the same as the Jar. When tliere is a desire to speak of certain cominon potencies like those of Colour and the rest, and yet to distinguish thoso present in things other than the Jar, one introduces the term Jar' (and uses the expression the Colour in the Jar'). Each of the terms Colour and the rest, by itself, is used for the purpose of connoting the specific capacity of each of those factors to bring about the visual and other cognitions specifically; thus it is that the term • Jar 'just indicates those diverse factors; thus there being no co-ordination between the two, the sameness of form is explained on the basis of different substratum.
- Why then are both the terms used ?"
Answer :- The general terins, etc. etc.':-The term Colonr'connotes Colour in general, in all sorts of conditions ; for instance, just as the Colour in the Jar is spoken of as Colour', so also is the colour in the Cloth; hence the word 'Colour' by itself does not connote anything in particular, -as to which particular Colour is meant. When, however, the expression used is the Colour in the Jar, the Colour connoted is that particular one which is in the form of the Jar, as distinguished from that in the Cloth and other things. Similarly, the term Jar. also connotes the Jar under all conditions, white, yellow, moving, not moving and so forth; hence the word by itself does not connote anything particular ; but when the expression 'the white colour in the Jar' is used, the notion that appears is that of the white Jar as distin. guished from other jars. Thus it is that when one wishes to speak of this particular Jar, the words are used in the form Colour in the Jar'
It is on the basis of such expressions that there appears the notion of the Colour in the Jar, in reference to the Jar. It is not on the basis of any such thing as 'Inherence'. The reason for this is next stated— Because the Distinction, etc. etc.' ;-there is no difference apprehended among
Inherence!, Jar' and Colour', -on the basis of which the said notion could be said to be based upon Inherence '.
What is meant by this is that the Reason adduced by the Opponent is 'inconclusive and his Conclusion is annulled by Inference and other means of cognition.-(831-834)
It has been argued by the Opponent (under Text 825, above) that Inasmuch as one and the same notion of this subsisting in that' is equally present in all cases, Inherence does not vary like Conjunction ".This is answered in the following
