Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Sarvadarshanasangraha 3.20

Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha 3.20

Language
Sanskrit

3.20

nirākārajñānavāde ´pi yogyatāvaśena pratikarmavyavasthāyāḥ sthitatvāt/ tathā hi pratyakṣeṇa viṣayākārarahitam eva jñānaṃ pratipuruṣam ahamahamikayā ghaṭādigrāhakam anubhūyate na tu darpaṇādivat pratibimbākrāntam/ viṣayākāradhāritve ca jñānasyārthe dūranikaṭādivyavahārāya jalāñjalir vitīryeta/

If you say that "the object may still be perceived, inasmuch as it will impress its form on the perception, even though the one may have existed in a different moment from the other," this too will not hold. For if you maintain that the knowledge acquired by perception has a certain form impressed upon it, you are met by the impossibility of explaining how a momentary perception can possess the power of impressing a form; and if you say that it has no form impressed upon it, you are equally met by the fact that, if we are to avoid incongruity, there must be some definite condition to determine the perception and knowledge in each several case. Thus by perception the abstract consciousness, which before existed uninfluenced by the external object, becomes modified under the form of a jar, &c., with a definite reference to each man's personality [i.e., I see the jar], and it is not merely the passive recipient of a reflection like a mirror. Moreover, if the perception only reproduced the form of the object, there would be an end of using such words as "far," "near," &c., of the objects.[5] Nor can you accept this conclusion, "as exactly in accordance with your own views," because, in spite of all our logic, the stubborn fact remains that we do use such phrases as "the mountain is nearer" or "further," "long" or "large." Nor may you say that "it is the object (which supplies the form) that really possesses these qualities of being 'further,' &c., and they are applied by a fashion of speech to the perception [though not really belonging to it]"—because we do not find that this is the case in a mirror [i.e., it does not become a far reflection because it represents a far object.] And again, as the perception produced by an object follows it in assuming the form of blue, so too, if the object be insentient, it ought equally to assume its form and so become itself insentient. And thus, according to the proverb, "wishing to grow, you have destroyed your root," and your cause has fallen into hopeless difficulties.

Edward Byles Cowell & Archibald Edward Gough 1882, The Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha, or Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy

Translations (2)