________________
DHARMAPĀLA'S COMMENTARY
65
then, the sense-faculty being the cause, that also will become object. [Because the sense-faculty never becomes object of any consciousness] the said concomitance incurs [26] a fallacy of inconclusiveness. Such being your proposition, we establish 20 this :
"Because atoms do not possess the form reflected in consciousness,” etc.
Why is this sentence? It purports to establish our own proposition. One cannot consider one's proposition to be established by merely criticising other's thesis. In order to formulate his own proposition, (Ācārya says thus:) thesis : atoms do not become objects of consciousness ; reason : because they do not manifest the form found in their consciousness; example: like a sensefaculty.
If the above phrase indicates that this is the reason for this proposition, it would follow that the author of the S'astra having first set forth his opponent's proposition, propounds his own one which goes in agreement with his opponent's. And now the author, having paid his attention to the refutation of the opponent's proposition, would exhibit many defects upon it and set it aside ultimately. [In arguing thus] the thesis which never varies that (i.e. reason) will be asserted. Other thesis which always varies (the reason] will be dissented.
At the outset the opponent raises an objection (düşana) [to the above proposition] pointing out to its inconclusive reasoning. How false a syllogism you
30 Read in Sanskrit p. 26, line 1: 791 TL (21€ 1]
