Verse 586

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

पौर्वापर्यविवेकेन यद्यप्येषामलक्षणम् ।
तथाऽप्यध्यक्षताऽबाधा पानकादाविव स्थिता ॥ ५८६ ॥

paurvāparyavivekena yadyapyeṣāmalakṣaṇam |
tathā'pyadhyakṣatā'bādhā pānakādāviva sthitā || 586 ||

Though they are not perceived in the sequential form,—yet their perceptibility cannot be denied,—it being similar to that of drinks and other things.—(586)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Question:—“Atoms are held to exist in a sequential form—one after the other;—and certainly they are not ‘perceived’ in that form; then how can they be said to be perceptible?”

Answer:—[see verse 586 above]

The term ‘adhyakṣatābādhā’ may foe taken as a genitive Tatpuruṣa compound, meaning—‘non-denial of Perceptibility’;—or it may not be treated as a compound but two separate words—‘adhyakṣatā’ and ‘abādhā’,—the meaning being ‘Perceptibility is undeniable’; i.e. there being no annulment of it, it cannot be denied.

‘It being similar, etc.’;—i.e. its perceptibility remains as undenied as the perceptibility of Drinks and other things. For instance, in the case of a ‘Drink’, the ‘Taptopala’ (? Heated or Burnt, Stone, a medicinal preparation), the ‘Sūtahema’ [? Quick-silver and gold, another medicinal preparation, the Makaradhvaja?], and such things,—where the constituent atoms are of mixed characters (tastes), they are actually perceived as such. In the case of these things, there is no ‘composite substance’ (apart from the constituent Atoms), the things consisting of heterogeneous elements. In fact, if the Composite were something different from the Atoms, no conjunction among them could be visible; because the substratum of such conjunction—i.e. the Atoms—are unseen (ex hypothesi); and if even one of the factors of the Conjunction is not visible, the Conjunction cannot be perceived; e.g. the conjunction between the Jar and the Ghost; and the conjunction between the Solar Disc and parts of space and of Ākāśa. Such being the case, where all the conjuncts—in the shape of Atoms,—are imperceptible, how can the Conjunction subsisting in them be perceptible?—(586)

Question:—“Thus then, the whole matter being uncertain, how can the perceptibility of Atoms be accepted as reasonable?”

Answer:—[see verse 587 next]