________________
1166
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXT (2523).
JUST AS ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE SHAPE OF Remoteness AND Nearness, THE COLOUR OF THINGS IS SEEN INDISTINCTLY AND DISTINCTLY (RESPECTIVELY),—IN THE SAME MANNER THERE WOULD ALSO BE THE COGNITION OF LESSER AND GREATER
INTENSITY OF THE SOUND.—(2523)
COMMENTARY.
Colour also is perceived without contact with the Eye and is not allporvading--and its perception is distinct or indistinct ; in the same manner in the case of Sound also, which also is not all-pervading and not in contact with the Ear, there would be Cognitions of greater or less intensity.
Objection "The other party does not admit of the perception of Colour without contact; how then is it put forward as the Corroborative Instance ? "
Answer-This does not affect our position. Though it is by mere words that the other party does not admit it, yet what is vouched for by proofs must be admitted by both parties.
"What is the proof that vouches for the idea in question that there is perception without contact) ?"
The proof is provided by the fact that there is simultaneous perception of near and remote things. A thing that has movement gets at the nearer object quickly, and at the remoter object with some delay; when for instance, one goes from one village to another. But in the case of the Branch of the tree and the Moon seen through it,--the perception of both is simultaneous, as soon as the Eyes are opened. From this it is deduced that the Eye is operative without actually getting into contact with the objeot perceived.
In connection with this subject, Uddyotakara argues as follows: "In. asmuch as Cognitions are produced quickly, there can be no perception of the time taken; henoe the idea, that the several Cognitions appear in the manner of the piercing of the hundred petals of the Lotus', is not true ".
This is not right. In this way, in the case of the two words sara' and 'rasa' also, there should be no recognition of the order in which the letters are heard ; the quick production of the perception being present here also; and if that is so, then there should be no difference between the Cognition of the word ' sara' and that of 'rasa'. And as there is quick production in the case of all Cognitions, there would be no perception of any order of sequence at all. This has been already thrashed out in detail before.
Again says Uddyotakara :-"Even if the Eye were operative without contact, the wall would have no power to obstruct it ; hence there would be no concealment of things. Nor would there be this phenomenon that what is remote is not seen while what is near is seen.-It might be argued that- That object alone is seen which comes within range of the Eye, and what does not do so is not seen': But that is not so ; without some sort of connection, there can be no coming within range. Because what is this coming within range, apart from being connected? The only difference
