________________
220 Controversy between Dualists and Monists [CH. knowledge does not mean that the objects produce knowledge, but that knowledge is associated with the objects. Again, if the association with the object be regarded as meaning “necessarily produced by objects," or if it necessarily means "in whichever place or at whichever time this object exists there is knowledge," then the Sankarites would not be able to affirm the unity of the soul. For, since the unity exists in Brahman, it could not be generated by the individual soul. And again, if it is affirmed that, whenever there is unity with Brahman, there is unity with the soul, then, since the Brahman is always one, all individual souls will be emancipated; it will also be impossible to determine the unity of individual souls and the unity of Brahman. So the objects do not generate the determinate knowledge, but are associated with it.
It is argued that whatever is limited and finite is false; now this limitation may be by time or space or by other entities (paricchinnatvam api deśataḥ kālato vastuto vā). Now as to this Vyāsa-tīrtha says that time and space cannot be limited by time and space and this is so much the case that even the supreme reality, the Brahman, is often spoken of as existing always and everywhere; time and space are thus universal characteristics and cannot be denied of others or of themselves. Thus the observation of Vācaspati, that whatever does not exist in some places and in some time is on that account absent everywhere and always, and that what is existent must always and everywhere be so (yat sat tat sadā sarvatra sad eva... tathā ca yat kadācit kutracid asat tat sadā sarvatra asadeva), is wholly invalid; for, if by non-existence at some particular time existence at any other time can be invalidated, then by existence at that time non-existence at other times may also be invalidated. It is as good logic to say that, because it will not exist then, therefore it does not exist now, as to say that, because it exists now, it must exist then?. Again, what is meant by spatial limitation? If it means non-association with all bodies (sarva-mūrttāsamyogitvam) or the non-possession of the supreme measure (parama-mahatparimāņānadhikaranatvam), then even Brahman is so; for He is untouchable (asanga) and He has no measure as His quality; if it means possession of limited measure (parimāna), then parimāņa or "measure," being a quality, cannot belong to a quality; so qualities would not be limited (guna-karmādau guņānangīkārāt). Again,
1 Nyāyāmpta, p. 79.
