आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

अप्रसिद्धोपलम्भस्य नार्थवित्तिः प्रसिद्ध्यति ।
तन्न ग्राह्यस्य संवित्तिर्ग्राहकानुभवादृते ॥ २०७४ ॥
अस्वस्थलोचनैर्दृष्टं तथा पीताद्यवेक्ष्यते ।
निष्कृष्टं ग्राहकांशाच्च संवेद्यं न तथा परम् ॥ २०७५ ॥

aprasiddhopalambhasya nārthavittiḥ prasiddhyati |
tanna grāhyasya saṃvittirgrāhakānubhavādṛte || 2074 ||
asvasthalocanairdṛṣṭaṃ tathā pītādyavekṣyate |
niṣkṛṣṭaṃ grāhakāṃśācca saṃvedyaṃ na tathā param || 2075 ||

As a matter of fact, there can be no apprehension of the object for one who has no apprehension of the cognition; hence there can be no apprehension of the apprehended object without the apprehension of the cognition.—(2074)

The yellow colour is also clearly perceived by people with diseased eyes; and yet it is not apprehended as something differentiated from the element of the apprehending cognition. it should be the same in the other case also.—(2075)

Kamalaśīla

[verse 2074]:

The above arguments (of Kumārila) are answered in the following:—[see verses 2074-2075 above]

The following Text points out the ‘Inconclusive’ character of the Reason adduced (by Kumārila, under Text 2070, above) that—‘the Object is clearly perceived as connected with outside space’:—[see verse 2075 above]

[verse 2075]:

There should be a stop at ‘niṣkṛṣtam’.

‘Also’;—i.e. just as the real ‘yellow’ is clearly perceived as connected with outside space, so also is the ‘yellow’ clearly perceived by the man with the jaundiced eyes.

Question:—“What if it is so perceived?”

Answer;—‘And yet it is, etc. etc.’—There should be a stop after ‘saṃvedyaṃ na’; and ‘niṣkṛṣṭam’ has to be construed here; and after ‘na’, ‘bhavati’ is to be understood.—Thus the meaning comes to be this:—The yellow that is perceived by the man with the diseased eyes does not become apprehended separately, differentiated from the apprehending factor; and yet it is perceived as ‘connected with outside space Hence the Reason in question is ‘Inconclusive’.

‘It should be the same, etc. etc.’—i.e. also in the case of the real ‘yellow’,—What is meant to be shown by this is that the two cases stand on the same footing only so far as ‘being clearly perceived’ is concerned.—(2075)