Karma Mimansa

Author(s): Berriedale Keith
Publisher: Berriedale Keith

Page 54

THE WORLD OF REALITY
45
On
proved, namely, that all cognitions as such are invalid. the contrary, we can form the idea of the invalidity of dream cognition simply from our having waking cognitions which afford us a basis for discrediting the dream cognitions, and we can explain the defects of dream cognitions by the assumption that the mind in dream is weak and does not act effectively, a view which we can support by the fact that in deep sleep the mind is wholly absent, suggesting that in the dream state it is in a condition intermediate between its effective waking presence and its disappearance. The opponent, however, continues the argument by urging that the object of the cognition is really a void, thus discrediting the validity of the cognition. There is, he says, no difference between the object of perception and the idea; the idea is directly perceived, and there is nothing in reality corresponding to an external object. The Vṛttikara replies that this view rests on the erroneous assumption that an idea must have a form; it really is without form, which, on the other hand, the external object possesses. What we perceive is not our idea, but something localised as outside ourselves; no idea ran perceive another idea, for each has a momentary existence only, whence one cannot be present to another. The opponent contends that the second idea has a certain continuity with the first; as it originates, it becomes known to the first and reveals to it the object, just as a lamp illumines and thus makes known things. Or, put in another way, it is the idea which first originates, and then the object becomes known, having no anterior real existence The Vṛttikara refutes this by insisting that, though the idea originates first, it is not known first; as we have seen, the idea is known by inference from the fact of our cognition of an object, and the actual knowledge and the knowledge of the idea cannot possibly be simultaneous. Though we know an object, we sometimes say we do not know it, that is, that we are not conscious of having an idea about it. Further, ideas are essentially connected with names, while perception 1s essentially immediate knowledge, in which naming is not necessarily involved. Moreover, if the idea and the object had the same form, as is assumed in the opponent's argument, this would sublate the idea, not the object, which is directly