Tattva Sangraha Vol 2

Author(s): Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra

Page 31

756
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XIX.
Anticipating this objection in the following Text (1516), the Author asserts in Text 1517) the fact of the Verbal Expression being an efficient Means of bringing about the cognition of the particular Desire to Speak'
TEXTS (1516-1517).
"IN THE CASE OF THE MAN UNDER AN ILLUSION, A VERBAL STATEMENT
IS FOUND WHICH IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE MAN DESIRED TO SAY '; SO ALSO IN THE CASE OF THE DESIRE TO SPEAK' in general ; HENCE THE VERBAL STATEMENT CANNOT TUNCTION (TOWARDS BRINGING ABOUT THE COGNITION OF ANY DESIRE TO SPEAK)”; -IF THIS IS URGED,-(THEN THE ANSWER IS THAT) THERE IS CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN WORDS USED BY THE MAN UNDER AN ILLUSION AND THOSE USED BY ONE WHO IS NOT UNDER AN ILLUSION. CLEVER MEN ARE QUITE ABLE TO DISCERN THIS DIFFERENCE THROUGH THE CONTEXT AND SUCH OTHER CIROUMSTANCES.(1516-1517)
COMMENTARY.
It must be admitted that there is difference between words used by the deluded person and those used by the person not so deluded; otherwise, a difference in the causes would make no difference in their effects. This difference clever men are quite able to discer, through the context and other circumstances.
Pralerta stands for the Context in which the words are used.
*And other circumstances ' ;-this includes the freedom from confusion, happy facial expression and so forth.-(1516-1617)
Question :-"Why should there be a distinction among the words at all ?" Answers
TEXTS (1518-1519).
DIFFERENCE AMONG WORDS IS DUE TO DIFFERENCE AMONG THEIR CAUSES. - IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT NOTICE THIS DIFFERENCE, THE FAULT IS TREIRS, NOT OF THE INDICATIVE.-OTHERWISE, THE FACT OF MERE suspected SMOKE NOT HAVING FOR ONCE BROUGHT ABOUT THE TRUE NOTION OF FIRE, MIGHT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EVEN WHEN
COGNISED WITH certainty, Smoke CANNOT BE : A TRUE INDICATIVE OF FIRE.-(1518-1519)
COMMENTARY That is to say, the difference is due to the difference in the Causes.
Consequently, when the effect has been duly pondered over, it is never found to be non-concomitant with its Cause; so that the Word does become the means of knowing the particular Intention of the Speaker'.