Verse 2032

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

न ज्ञानात्मा परात्मेति नीलधीवेदने कथम् ।
नीलाकारस्य संवित्तिस्तयोर्नो चेदभिन्नता ॥ २०३२ ॥

na jñānātmā parātmeti nīladhīvedane katham |
nīlākārasya saṃvittistayorno cedabhinnatā || 2032 ||

The ‘nature of cognition’ not being the ‘nature of the other thing’ [according to the other party];—how could there be apprehension of the blue form, when there is apprehension of the cognition of the blue,—if there is no non-difference between these two?—(2032)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged:—“Even though the presence of your Probans where the Probandum is known to be absent is not known with certainty,—yet it is suspected all the same; and even so the Probans becomes ‘Inconclusive’; as its exclusion from the contrary of the Probandum is doubtful. Because, inasmuch as the relation of ‘Subject’ and ‘Object’ (between the Cognition and the Cognised) is definite, the fact of their ‘being apprehended together’ (Concomitance) is open to an explanation other than their non-difference; because the Cognition is always of the nature of the apprehended, as it has the character of apprehending things; and the Object is always the apprehended; and the fact of these two being always together is due to their being dependent upon the same set of circumstances.—In the case of the Eye and other sense-organs, it is found that, even though they are equally produced together,—they cannot be the cognised object; simply because they do not have that character. Because, as a matter of fact, what the causal circumstances bring about is the Cognition only in the form of the apprehension of the Blue and other objects,—not in that of the apprehension of such objects as the Eye, etc.; the, Blue, etc. also are produced in the form in which they are apprehended by that Cognition; not so the Eye, etc.—All this has been declared as follows;—‘There is no apprehender other than Cognition, nor without the visible and other objects; it is on this ground that the fact of the Blue Object and its Cognition being apprehended together rests, not upon their non-difference;—the antecedent circumstances would bring about the Cognition of the object-moment, in the same way as Light does that of Colour; and in this way they would be apprehended together

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 2032 above]

When one thing differs from another, there can be no certainty of their being apprehended together, except through a constant relationship; as otherwise, there would be incongruities. In the case in question, there is no Relationship in the cognition of the different thing. For instance, if there were such Relationship, it could either consist (a) in being of the same nature or (b) in one being the product of the other;—(a) in the case in question the Opposite party does not admit the sameness of the two factors concerned; and in fact, that is exactly what is going to be proved here;—(b) nor could the fact of being apprehended together be due to one being the product of the other; because there can be no relationship of Cause and Effect between things that come into existence at the same time; and also because in that case, there should be apprehension of the Eye and the other organs also (which are the cause of Cognition).

Nor can their relation of Object and Subject’ be based upon mere simultaneity due to the antecedent circumstances. Because, in that case, the relationship of ‘Object and Subject’ would have to be admitted as subsisting between the Mind and Mental Effects on the one hand and the Eye and other Sense-organs on the other.—It cannot be said in answer to this that—“what the Antecedent circumstances bring about is the relationship of object and subject in regulated form, and hence there could be no incongruities”;—because, in reality, it is this same ‘relation of object and subject’ that forms the subject of the present discussion, and as such cannot be admitted as established. In fact, it is only when the constant relationship has become established, that the ‘relation of subject and object’ could be there; and it is this same constant relationship as the basis of the Relation of subject and object, that is being considered now.

Apart from sameness and being produced, there can be no other constant relationship, on which the Relation of object and subject could be based. And we have just arrived at the conclusion that (in the case in question) no such relation of subject and object can be based upon the said sameness and being produced. Consequently, apart from these there can be no ‘joint apprehension’. Why then should the Reason be regarded as having its exclusion from the contrary of the Probandum doubtful?—(2032)