0347 Verse 452-453

Original

इदानीन्तनमस्तित्वं न हि पूर्वधिया गतम् ।
तदस्त्यस्य विशेषश्चेत्स्मरणे यो न विद्यते ॥ ४५२ ॥
पूर्वप्रमितमात्रे हि जायते स इति स्मृतिः ।
स एवायमितीयं तु प्रत्यभिज्ञाऽतिरेकिणी ॥ ४५३ ॥

idānīntanamastitvaṃ na hi pūrvadhiyā gatam |
tadastyasya viśeṣaścetsmaraṇe yo na vidyate || 452 ||
pūrvapramitamātre hi jāyate sa iti smṛtiḥ |
sa evāyamitīyaṃ tu pratyabhijñā’tirekiṇī || 453 ||

“As a matter of fact, the existence of the thing at the present time (of recognition) has not been included under the previous cognition; this is a peculiar feature in recognition, which is not present in remembrance. Remembrance is in the form of ‘that’ and appertains only to that which has been already cognised before; recognition however is in the form ‘this is that same’, which is something totally different (from the previous cognition).”—(452-453)

Kamalaśīla

The following Texts urge—from Kumārila’s standpoint [vide Ślokavārtika—Perception, Ślo. 234]—the argument that “Recognition does not apprehend what has been already apprehended”:—[see verses 452-453 above]

Kumārila has argued as follows:—“The previous Cognition has not apprehended the existence of the Thing at the present time (of Recognition); as it could not appear in the form ‘this is the same as that’; hence there is a difference between Recognition and Remembrance.—“How?”—Remembrance always appears in the form of ‘That’ which takes in only that much of the Thing as has been cognised before; while Recognition takes in the idea of ‘This’ also (being in the form ‘This is the same as that’), which is an additional feature of theng concerned. To this extent, Recognition is something different from Remembrance. Thus Recognition acquires the character of a real ‘Means of Right Cognition’, after having shaken off the Doubt and Mistake in regard to it.”—(452-453)

He proceeds to show in what way it shakes off the Doubt and Mistake:—[see verse 454 next]