________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DEFINITION OF “SENSE-PBROEPTION ", 637
fication as that of being of silver or of copper and so forth;or, if there is no apprehension of the Jar by itself, then there would be no apprehension of any Jar at all, not even of the one in tended; so that there would be no apprehension of the Jar at all.-In the same manner, in the case in question if the distinguishing character is not apprehended, there would either be apprehension of the thing alone by itself, or there would be no apprehension at all; there could be no escape from these alternatives".-(1265-1267)
[Sumati's] Parvapaksa (Criticism) against us thus would be as follows:
TEXT (1268).
"IF PERCEPTION IS REGARDED AS APPREHENDING THE THING AS DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER APPREHENSIBLE THINGS, THEN THIS COGNITION WOULD BE Conceptual (DETERMINATE), JUST LIKE THE
COGNITION OF THE TREE AND OTHER THINGS."-(1268)
COMMENTARY.
"If Sense-perception is intended to be apprehensive of the Thing as characterised (distinguished) by a character not found anywhere else, - then it becomes Conceptunl; because it apprehends the thing as characterised or qualified by some character; just like the Perception in the form . This is a tree."-(1268)
The following argument might be urged against Sumati :-* There is no such thing as the Thing itself which could be apprehended as qualified by a character; what there is is only that qualified thing which is held by you, and also by me, to be the Particular (or Individual); it is this only that exists and is apprehended'.
To this Sumati makes the following answer :
TEXT (1269). "THERE IS NO PARTICULAR (OR INDIVIDUAL) WITHOUT A TOUCH OF THE UNIVERSAL. IF THIS IS NOT TOUCHED IN THE APPREHENSION, THEN THE PARTICULAR, BECOMING DEVOID OF BEING,
CANNOT BE APPREHENDED."-(1269)
COMMENTARY.
"The term 'matra', 'itself, in the Opponent's statemente stands for the Universal, that which is called 'Being '; and absolutely independent of this Universal, there is no Particular (or Individual) which could be appre. hended.-It might be said - Under your view there may be such a Universal, but this is not touched at all at the time of the apprehension' -Our answer to that is-If this is not quite clear in the apprehension, that is due to its having
