Verse 2057-2058

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

प्रमेयत्वादिहेतुभ्यः सन्तानान्तरचित्तवित् ।
आन्तरानुभवाद्भिन्नं देशविच्छेदभासि चेत् ॥ २०५७ ॥
अत्रापि व्यभिचारित्वं न रूपेणास्य चेतसः ।
तथापी(हि ?)तद्द्विचन्द्राद्यैरस्वस्थनयनेक्षितैः ॥ २०५८ ॥

prameyatvādihetubhyaḥ santānāntaracittavit |
āntarānubhavādbhinnaṃ deśavicchedabhāsi cet || 2057 ||
atrāpi vyabhicāritvaṃ na rūpeṇāsya cetasaḥ |
tathāpī(hi ?)taddvicandrādyairasvasthanayanekṣitaiḥ || 2058 ||

“That which appears in various places must be regarded as different from apprehension which is internal (subjective)—because it is cognisable, etc.,—like the cognition occurring in another chain”,—if this is urged [then, the answer is as in the next text].—(2057)

In this argument also there is ‘falsity’ (inconclusiveness); as there is no difference, in these respects, between the colour and the cognition; and there is ‘inconclusiveness’ also, in view of the ‘two moons’ and other things perceived by men with diseased eyes.—(2058)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

With the following Text, the Author sets forth the arguments propounded by Uddyotakara [Nyāyavārtika on Sū. 4. 2. 34]:—[see verse 2057 above]

[verse 2057]:

He has argued thus:—“The Blue etc. which appear in various places must be regarded as different from Apprehension, which is interna’,—because they are cognisable, because they are evanescent, because they are products, and because they have causes;—just like the Cognition appearing in another Chain”.

[verse 2058]:

‘In this argument’—i.e. in all the Reasons adduced.

‘Falsity’—Inconclusiveness.—Because the ‘inner cognition’ also has the character of ‘cognisability’ and the rest; just as there is ‘inconclusiveness’ also in view of the ‘two moons’ that appear in the Cognition of the man with the diseased eye.

In things like the ‘two moons’, cognisability should be understood to be present in the sense that they appear in that form in the Conceptual Cognition; because they are not really cognisable in the sense of forming the object of the cognition itself; because they are not in contact with the Sense-organ; as declared in the saying—‘On account of the obstruction of the Hair, etc. the visual perception does not proceed from the Sense-organ’.—(2058)