________________
ĀLAMBANAPARĪKSĀ
“Similarly the aggregate, as it does not exist in substance, does not act as cause for its consciousness”.
Since it is not a real entity just like the double moon, it proves certain that the aggregate is not at all the cause. Hence
“It does not become object.” Here again the word “ the double moon” is repeated. The example of the double moon, it is to be understood, shows the reason, the possession of the image [by consciousness] to be an inconclusive one. The existence of an object for every consciousness can also be achieved through a common logic; hence your proposition involves the defect of contradiction. [This argument is not valid ; for] the visual consciousness arises through the eye (only), but neither through the aggregate such as a patch of blue, etc. nor through the atom ; since the consciousness is not produced by both of them just like the consciousness born of the senses other the eye. This example is acceptable to all. So nothing else is to be mentioned.
The example, “the double moon" does not exist in substance, hence that, having the nature of uncausal object, proves the same (i.e. absence of the cause for the aggregate-consciousness). Though the double moon-consciousness is endowed with the image of the double moon, there is no real object (corresponding to it]. The expression also happens even in the absence of its causal object.
