________________
1190
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIV.
TEXT (2587)
As A MATTER OF FACT, THE PERCEPTION OF THE REFLECTED IMAGE CANNOT HAVE THE MAN'S OWN REAL FACE AS ITS OBJECTIVE BASIS ; BECAUSE WHAT FIGURES IN THE PERCEPTION IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE REAL FACE ; JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF TASTE AND
SOUND, ETC.—(2587)
COMMENTARY.
Tadvilakşana, etc. This word has to be construed as with the abstract ending "tva'; and as a Bahwwrihi compound.
This argument may be formulated as follows:-When a Cognition envisages something entirely different from a certain thing, it cannot have this latter for its objective basis-e.g. the Cognition of Taste cannot have Sound for its objective basis; or the Cognition of Sound cannot have Taste for its objective basis ;-the Cognitions of the reflected image envisage something entirely different from the real face :-hence here we have the apprehension of something contrary to the wider factor.--(2587)
In the following Texts, the author points out that the Reason here put forward cannot be regarded as 'Inadmissible':
TEXTS (2588-2590).
IN A SMALLER MIRROR THE FACE APPEARS AS SMALLER ;-THE TREE REFLEOTED IN THE WATER APPEARS AS UPSIDE DOWN, AND AS SUNK IN THE WATER : THE OBJECT REFLECTED IN THE MIRROR FACES THE MIRROR, NOT SO ITS REFLEOTED IMAGE; WHILE THE REFLECTED IMAGE IS IN THE WATER, THE OBJECT REFLECTED IS FAR OFF ; -THE REFLECTED IMAGE ALWAYS VARIES WITH THE REFLECTING SURFACE, AS REGARDS ITS LARGENESS, SMALLNESS, ETC., NOT SO THE OBJECT RE
YLEOTED. FOR THESE REASONS OUR REASON CANNOT BE REGARDED AS 'INADMISSIBLE'.
-(2588-2590)
COMMENTARY.
In a smaller mirror, the face, though really larger, appears as smaller;the tree reflected in water is perceived top downward and as sunk in the