________________
938
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIU.
actually recognised in Consciousness is the idea of something gross.-If the rending is ' pratyayê aprativelanit', there is to be no compounding. The argument may be formnlated as follows:--That which does not appear in its own form in the Cognition which is held to be Perception, should not be regarded as perceived ',- for instance, the sky-lotus '; -the Atom, many and corporeal, does not appear in this form in the Cognition which is held to be Perception, which always apprehends the gross form thus there is no apprehension of the widor character (which would imply perceptibility); because 'Perceptibility' is invariably concomitant with appearance of its own form '---This same invariable concomitance is shown by the words- If the Atoms, etc. etc.:-(1967-1969)
The following might be urged-" In as much as we hold the doctrine that the Atoms are always produced, and also perish, in the aggregated form, there can be no appearance of the Atoms singly; as has been asserted by Bhadanta-Shubhagupta-Atoms cannot come about one by one, each independently by itself; that also is the reason why they do not appear singly in consciousness'."
The following Text shows that this is no answer to the argument urged above (under 1967 et seq.).
TEXTS (1970-1971)
EVEN IF THEY COME INTO EXISTENCE IN THE AGGREGATED FORM, THE ATOMS SHOULD APPEAR IN THEIR OWN FORM (IN THE COGNITION); BECAUSE EVEN UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS THEY DO NOT ABANDON THEIR impartite FORM. IF IT BE SAID THAT," THEIR FORM IS ONE THAT HAS REACHED THE LOWEST LIMIT OF DIMUNITION (SMALLNESS)", -THEN, WHY SHOULD NOT THEY BE REGARDED AS incorporeal, LIKE
SENSATION, ETC. ?-(1970-1971)
COMMENTARY.
Under those conditions in the aggregated form.
Further, if the Atoms are impartite (indivisible), then they should not be regarded as corporeal ; so that the present assertion of the Opponent involves a self-contradiction.—This is what is shown by the words "If it be said, etc. etc.''Labdhapa, etc.' means that form or character which has reached the lowest limit of dimunition'. That is to say, if the Atoms are not liable to dimunition through the diminishing contacts of component parts,-i.e. if they are indivisible, without parts, they must be regarded as incorporeal', like Sensations and Feelings, -as there would be no distinction between them.-(1970-1971)
The following Text anticipates the answer that may be given by Bhadanta. Shubhagupta