________________
Tattvarthasūtra
contact only with qualities such as colour and that these (the senses) cognize only the qualities. But this is not true. The qualities such as colour are non-material and cannot be contacted by the senses. Then why do we say, "I saw the colour," and "I smelt the odour,"? That which attains modes (paryaya) or that which is attained through modes is the substance (artha). Therefore, artha' is 'dravya'. Since colour, etc., are qualities that are not separate from the substance (dravya) it is proper to say, "I saw the colour," and "I smelt the odour," when the senses come in contact with the objects.
Do impression (avagraha), etc., occur in case of all the senses and the mind? Or is there any difference?
व्यञ्जनस्यावग्रहः ॥ १८ ॥
[ व्यञ्जनस्य ] व्यञ्जन (अप्रगटरूप शब्दादि पदार्थों) का [ अवग्रहः ] मात्र अवग्रह ज्ञान होता है, ईहादि तीन ज्ञान नहीं होते ।
There is only impression (avagraha) of indistinct things - vyanjana.
Collection of indistinct sounds, etc., is 'vyanjana'. In case of these, there is impression (avagraha) only. What is the purpose of this sūtra? It is for determination that there is impression (avagraha) only of 'vyanjana' and not inquisitiveness (ihā), etc. If so, the word 'only' should have appeared in the sutra. No, it is not necessary. If once certain activity has been established, its repetition makes it a rule or makes it a certainty. Hence, without the use of the word 'only' in the sūtra, it establishes the rule.
Now impression (avagraha) has been mentioned in both cases, 'artha' and 'vyanjana'. Then what is the difference between the two? The
32
