________________
But all these agrumentations as urged against the possibility of the combination of the self and the other into an organic whole do not hold good here. It is true in fact that subreption consisting as it does in the putting of the notion of something already observed elsewhere into something else present in the vision, is only possible between the different objects of knowledge; but then the self is intuitively perceived as constitutional with us and as such it is the object of our introspection. And further more because the self is admitedly the object of the connotation of the I, it is also present in our vision as such. And this accounts for the combination of the self and the other by subreption into an organic whole.
Indeed as contended the self which is in reality (nischaya naya) of the nature of pure consciousness and luminous of itself is not an object of knowledge; and as such it is neither fettered nor tainted with any of the blemishes, neither it is in reality the agent of any deed not the enjoyer of any fruits thereof. But in such combination by subreption as of the self and the other, the same self
547
