________________
618
TATTVASANGRARA: CHAPTER XVII.
TEXT (1220),
THE UNIVERSAL AND THE REST BEING NEVER PERCEIVED, AND THEIR CONNECTION BEING NEVER MANIFESTED, -HOW CAN THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH THINGS BE POSSIBLE,-AS BETWEEN
MILK AND WATER, ETC.?-(1220)
COMMENTARY
Like Mill and Water, etc. -When Milk and Water are mixed up, they do not appear separately, and hence it is no longer possible to connect the two ; in the same manner, even if the Universal and the rest do exist, they never appear as distinguished from their substratum ; and hence it is not possible to connect them with their substratum.-(1220)
"If there the Conceptual Content in the form of association with the Universal is not possible, then, how is it that the propounder of the definition (Disināga in his Nyāyamukha) has asserted that Conceptual Content' consists in connection with Name, Universal and so forth'?"
The Answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (1221)
TWO KINDS OF CONCEPTUAL CONTENT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE TWO ASSERTIONS, IN ORDER TO SET FORTH THE TWO VIEWS THAT HAVE BEEN HELD BY PERSONS BELONGING TO OUR OWN PARTY AND BY THOSE BELONGING TO OTHER PARTIES, IN ORDER TO SHOW WHICH IS TO BE ACCEPTED AND
WHICH TO BE REJECTED.-(1221)
COMMENTARY
What is to be rejected is the Conceptual Content in the form of connection with the Universal, etc. which is the view accepted by the other party : and what is to be accepted is the view of our own party that it consists in association with name. In order to set forth this distinotion, both view's relating to Conceptual Content have been asserted.
Question :-"How do you know that it is so ?"
Answer:-By the two assertions that is the words used by the Teacher are 'nāmajātyädiyojana', -connection or association with Name and Universal, etc.', where both the Name and the Universal, etc. have been mentioned, as representing tho two views. If this were not intended, then the expression used would have been either association with Name, etc.? or association with the Universal, etc. Nor is the enumeration meant to
