________________
( 44
)
of nescience just like the existence of knowledge. Your statement that Brahm is proved without nescience by direct evi. dence also shows the negation of nescience by the same proof. It being so, your statement that direct proof indicates only existence and not non-existence is like the statement of a madman. Now as regards your indirect proof what is argued later on will repudiate it. My position is that the phenomena are not an illusion being opposed to unreality. What is opposed to unreality is real such as the soul. Similar is the case with the phenomena. Your argument relating to the cognition of things is opposed to the existence of Supreme being in asmuch as the Supreme spirit is not perceptible but at the same time not unreal. If you say that the supreme spirit is imperceptible then it is indescribable. If it is not indescribable, your position becomes untenable, because your expostulation is that there is no thing else besides the Brahma and that the supreme Atman is invisible. In your form
