________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DEFINITION ON "SUNSE-PERCEPTION".
671
TEXT (1349).
WHEN ONCE THE DISTINCTION HAS BEEN MADE, IT MAY BE ASSUMED TO BE OTHERWISE ALSO IT IS ONLY THE FORM OF THE DISTINCTION THAT IS SPOKEN OF IN THE FORM
OF THE Producer and Produced.—(1349)
COMMENTARY.
Kumärila has in his Shlokavārtika (Sense-perception, 78), in the words The Cognition can be the Means as bringing about the apprehension, etc. etc.-based the distinction between the Means and Fruit on the relation of Producer and Produced. And in this there is nothing incompatible with our view. As our Teacher has declared as follows:- The attributing of the name Pratyaksa to the Eye and other causes is not incompatible':-All that we say is as follows:-It is essential that in the beginning the relation of Catise and Effect can be based only upon the distinction previously made: iuntil the difference in the Cognitions has been distinctly recognised, nothing can proceed on the basis of the difference in abjectives ; and for the recogni. tion of the difference among Cognitions there can be no basis other than the sameness of form; and from this it follows by implication that the sameness of form is the most efficient instrument, and it is on the basis of this sameness of form that the Cognition proceeds to prompt people to activity, and the fact of the prompter being the Means of Right Cognition can be determined only by one who is seeking to engage in the activity concerned ; and not merely as a whim. It has been thus declared-Every wise person seeks to determine what is the proper means of cognition and what is not so, only for the purpose of some fruitful activity. It is for this reason that that factor alone in the Cognition has to be brought out by which it serves to prompt men to activity. But in drawing the distinction between the Means of Cognition and its fruit on the basis of the relation of Producer and Produced, there is no recognition of that sameness of form which is the only prompting factor; consequently the said distinction between the Means of Cognition and ita fruit on the said basis would be absolutely useless. This is the reason why the Teacher had recourse to a figurative indirect) interpretation, as he felt that the determining of the character of the Means of Cognition on the said basis cannot take any part in the prompting to activity,
Thus when the distinction has once been made, it may subsequently be explained on the basis of the relation of Producer and Produced and there would be nothing objectionable in that only the initial distinction has to be made first, and hence it cannot be due to that relation)-(1349)
The following Texts sets forth the character of the Fruit as proposed by Kumarila:
