________________
814
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XIX.
TEXTS (1662–1664). OR, THERE MAY BE 'NON-MODIFICATION OF THE SOUL EVEN SO,
THE DEYINITION IS WRONG. BECAUSE IN THE STATE OF SLEEP, SWOON AND THE LIKE, EVEN THOUGH THIS (NON-MODIFICATION OF SOUL) IS THERE, THE OBJECTS (OF COGNITION) ARE THERE.-IF THEN, THE NON-MODIFICATION OF THE SOUL' BE HELD TO BE IN REFERENCE TO THE JAR AND OTHER THINGS, ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN THERE ARE OTHER COGNITIONS, THE PLACE CONCERNED IS SEEN TO BE DEVOID OF THOSE THINGS, THEN, EVEN BY THIS EXPLANATION, WHAT MORE HAS BEEN SAID IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS SAID IN THE SECOND DEFINITION (OF NEGATION) THAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, -IN VIEW WHEREOF THE TWO DEFINITIONS HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD AS ALTERNATIVES ?-(1662-1664)
COMMENTARY. *Wrong 'Too wide.
Swoon and the like '-And the like' is meant to include those conditions where there is interception, or the thing is behind one's back.
Even though this is there i.e. even though the Soul is there, notmodified into the form of the Cognition of the Jar and other things.
[Says the Opponent]—"Even though cognition other than those based on real objects are there, this is cognition of the place as devoid of the Jar and such real substances, -and it is this that is meant by non-modification'; as the Soul (under the states) is not modified into the form of the cognition of the Jar, etc. (and thus this precludes the cases of sleep, swoon and the like]- Tasya' stands for the Soul.- Asan' stands for non-modification".
If this is what is meant (by the first definition), then there would be nothing said (in the first definition) which differentiated this definition from the second definition (put forward in Text 1649) to the effect that Negation is the cognition of some other object'; so that the putting forward of two alternative views would be useless.-(1862-1664)
The following Text points out the defect in the second definition of Negation (put forward under Text 1649)
TEXT (1665). IF THE SECOND KIND OF NEGATION WERE ADMITTED, THEN, WHEN THE 'COGNITION OF SOME OTHER THING 'WOULD COME ABOUT, THERE WOULD BE NEGATION OF EVERYTHING ELSE, EVEN THAT WHICH IS NOT PERCEPTIBLE-(1665)
COMMENTARY Even that, etc. etc. ' i.e. things removed in time, place and nature.
Second kind of Negation i.e. that in the form of the cognition of something else (1665)
