________________
62
ĀLAMBANAPARĪKSA
object of consciousness will cause a gross form to appear in it. But if you assume that there is no external thing which may serve as a cause to consciousness'' ; [then] there is a fault of the subject of your thesis being contradicted in its own character. So also is your probandum (dharma=sādhyadharma) unknown to us. If you say that what has been recognised by the opponent as an accepted fact, can only be formulated as an appropriate example, then the same is also to be applied in respect of Probandum (you cannot prove by means of inference a thing which is impossible to prove].
However, one whose mind is bent on supreme pramana, says : By what reason the two reasons, source of dispute can be made valid, that reason is not to be found because of lack of example which is recognised both by us. Hence in what manner may the representation of the image in consciousness be established as valid reason ?15
“Though atoms serve as causes,” etc. as accepted [by the advocates of atoms, that is, soine of the early Buddhists and Jains]. The atom by itself cannot serve as the cause of the consciousness for the reason that it is not perceived and hence non-existent;
13 Vijñānam Svāṁsālambanan is the thesis of the Vijñāna. vādin. This view has been much criticised by Kumārila and Udyotakara ; (Slokavārtika and N. Vārtika with Tikā and N. Sūtra IV, 2, 26).
" Read in Sanskrit p 24, line 4 : af#: szegfartaale:enta i aer धर्मवचनमप्रसिद्धम् ।
15 Read in Sanskrit: agrareto: gtaa!
