________________
(9)
it is not certainly consistent with logical principles that one and the same thing can be the object (karman) and the instrument (karana) of any particular action. The sunbeam is regarded as an instrument in so far as the manifestation of objects is concerned; but, it is not an instrument but an object when it reveals itself. Thus, in the instance cited above there are two different actions, namely, 'to manifest oneself' and 'to manifest others' and of these two the sunbeam is the object in the first and the instrument in the second. In order to make his position perfectly sound, Jayanta next raises certain apparent inconsistencies to which his criticism might be exposed and he takes upon himself the burden of solving them satisfactorily. Thus, he anticipates an opponent who might enquire of him about the instrument in the case where the sunbeam is the object of the verb 'to manifest'. Jayanta replies by saying that the instrument in that case is the eye which without the aid of anything else helps in giving effect to the action. Objections, however, might still be continued to show that in other cases where the eye acts as the instrument of any particular action, it requires the aid of light. But, in the present case it has been said that the help of an auxiliary is not requisitioned by the eye which acts alone. Thus, Jayanta is accused of violating a rule which his critics are not inclined to pass over. Jayanta steers clear of the difficulty by pointing out that the case under consideration is a peculiar one and should be studied by itself. It is the order of worldly objects which is the final authority to explain why the eye requires the aid of light at the time it cognizes any object other than light and why again it becomes sufficient by itself when it cognizes light.
To come to the point, the sunbeam is at first perceived the eye when it is regarded as an object (karman); but, the next moment it becomes an instrument (karaṇa) in effecting
by
4