Tattva Sangraha Vol 2

SR No.: 007609
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1939
Total Pages: 887
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 84 MB

Page 450

"THE REVEALED WORD."
1175
THAT IT COGNISES THINGS, AND YET IT ACTUALLY APPREHENDS IT IN THE BODY ONLY";—BUT EVEN WITH THIS, THE VIEW IS OPEN TO OBJECTION: THERE WOULD, IN THIS CASE, BE NO SUCH DISTINCTIONS AS THAT OF THE DEAF' AND THE LIKE, AND FOR THE SAME REASON IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR ONE COGNITION NOT TO BE APPREHENDED BY ANOTHER SOUL ; AS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.(2539-2544)
COMMENTARY.
Anyat'—the substratum of the unembellished organ.
Such distinction is not possible in the case of what is without parts, indivisible. If there were, it would have to be regarded as with parts, divisible.-If the distinction were merely assumed (not real), then there would be an incompatibility regarding its being with and also without effective action : because effective actions never follow in the wake of mere assumptions; they are always related to real entities. Consequently, if the organ has become embellished in one substratum, it acquires thereby the capacity to bring about the cognition of things; so that in another substratum also, as the organ would really be the same, it would be embellished everywhere, and hence capable of bringing about the Cognition of things.
Thus what has been said (in Text 2542) regarding "the Cognitions appearing in the several parts of the bodies of men", becomes set aside ; because there can be no real division in what is one only.--This is what is shown in the words Pursām, etc. etc.
Pradhänavaidëshyam':- Pradhana', 'Principal Factor), stands for the Body - Vaidëshya'-residence in different parts of Akäsha.
Evamultēpi, etc. --because there can be no division for what is one only.
Avyavasthānam'-impossibility of such distinctions.-(2539-2544)
The following Text shows how there is no difference between the two :
TEXT (2545).
WHEN IT CANNOT ABANDON ITS PREVIOUS FORM, AND WHEN NO NEW FEATURES CAN APPEAR IN IT, -WHY CANNOT THE AUDITORY ORGAN COME WITHIN RANGE OF THE EXPERIENCE OF
ANOTHER, (2545)
COMMENTARY.
It might be argued that "there would be differences, by reason of the Auditory Organ being influenced by Merit and Demerit".
The answer to that is as follows: