________________
Verse 100
both have the same attributes. The example of the union of substances, like nectar-rich flowers of mahuā, jaggery (guda) and water, producing intoxicating effect is not appropriate since what is produced out of these substances is inanimate and with form, while you wanted to give example of an inanimate substance producing an animate substance. It is clear now that the soul is an altogether different substance from the body, with consciousness as its differentia. As the soul exists in the present body, it had existed in the previous body and will exist in the future body. Some reflexive actions of infants, like the impulse to get breastfed, point to this truth. Whatever volitional movements are seen in this body are due to the force that is the soul. It is clear that the rationale you had put forward to prove that consciousness is made up of four basic substances is misguided and flawed.”
Turning his attention to Sambhinnamati, proponent of the doctrine of momentariness – vijñānavāda, Svayambuddha spoke thus:
“Your doctrine of momentariness – vijñānavāda - professes absolute existence of momentary cognition (vijñāna); how can this be proved? By your absolute cognition itself? If through the use of the sādhya (statement of that which is to be proved, the major term) and the sādhana (statement of the reason, the middle term, hetu) one tries to prove that cognition alone is real, the process will not be a legitimate one; the statement of the sādhya, without considering any distinction whatsoever between the sādhya and sādhana, will suffer from what is known as the fallacy of the thesis (pratijñādoșa) and the statement of the hetu, without accepting an inseparable connection with the major term, sādhya, from the fallacy of the reason (hetudoşa). If it be maintained that
........................
155
