Alamban Pariksha

Author(s): Dinnaga, Dharmapala, N Aiyaswami Shastri
Publisher: Adyar Library

Page 90

66
ĀLAMBANAPARĪKŅĀ have formulated ! Even the ordinary folk says that the reason which is found separated from and never associated with the object to be proved (sadhya) is not at all a reason, but such reason gives rise to the doubt as to the existence of the object to be proved. Therefore you should formulate some other syllogism. Your reason “The atoms do not possess the form reflected in consciousness” may sometimes exist in the atoms whose innate natures are undetermined. But the resolve is not correct that consciousness always arises in co-ordination with the image [of the object]. Therefore there is no room for your determination that the atoms do not possess the form reflected in consciousness. It ought to be stated on the other hand, that they are of indeterminate natures. However, this much is certain that what produces consciousness does not become its object just like the atom of sensefaculty. There are well-known other different causes which produce the visual consciousness; none of them makes known to us the innate natures of atoms, because consciousness never exhibits their forms.
What has been stated in respect of the sensual consciousness may also be equally applied to the other types of consciousness. The sense-faculty given above as example is in fact stated with a view of particularisation (pradars'anārtham) and other example may also be obtained by way of implication (arthapatti). Thus the statement of the above reason also becomes useless.
[27] [The author replies:] The atom, though it functions as cause, becomes no actual object of consciousness,