________________
958
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIII.
TEXT (2020).
FOR THE OTHER PARTY, PROXIMITY COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR SUCH APPREHENSION, AS THERE IS UNDER THE VIEW THAT COGNITION HAS A FORM, IN THE SHAPE OF THE REFLECTED
IMAGE':-(2020)
COMMENTARY.
For the other party',-one who holds the view that Cognition is formLORA; whose opinion is that "it is the external Ohjeet thint lax form, the Cognition is formless".-(2020)
It has been asserted (under Text 2014) that "the illuminativeness of Cognition consists in its being of the nature of Approhonsiori".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (2021).
TY, BY ITS NATURE, COGNITION IS unconscious AND AS SUCH, CAN HAVE NO APPREHENSION OF ITSELF, THEN, THERE WOULD BE NO CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE COGNITION; WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE SAME IS THE CASE WITH THE APPREHENSION OF THE OTHER ALSO.
-(2021)
COMMENTARY If Oognition, being unconscious, doos not apprehend itself, then the Cognition itself being imperceptible, the apprehension of the Object also wonld have to be regarded as imperceptible. (2021)
The following might bo urged "If the Cognition is not porceptible, why should the apprehension of the Object also conse to be perceptible ? Certainly the impereeptibility of Colour does not makn Sound also imperceptible".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (2022) THE Apprehension of the Object TS CALLED 'COGNITION' ITSELF; IF THEN, THERE IS NO PERCEPTION OF TRE COGNITION, HOW CAN THERE
BE PERCEPTION OF THE OTHER ?-(2022)
COMMENTARY.
We cannot find any other form (or character) of the Cognition, apart from Apprehension. And so long as we cannot find any such, if we were to carry on any business, we would be deceiving ourselves and also others,