________________
A Modern Understanding
is taken as of the natuie of spiritual introspection because, known as illusory or having been illusory, it is not so far known et ospectively as having been an object like other independent objects--and so fai, one may say, though not coriectly, as having been subjective--though its erstwhile experienced objectivity is not also explicitly denied The retiospective reflective awareness of the illusory snake as having been illusoiy is to be called spuitual intiospection for another reason like the primary cognition which is normally intios. pected spiritually, the object here--that illusory suales revealed to the sāksin diect, not through the inteiient1011 of any vrtu
That cognition as a mental state is nearei introspection is cleai fiom another consideration also. It is that one finds is extremely difficult to distinguish between this cognition and introspection so far as their stuff is concerned a thing we seldom experience in oui primary cognition of worldly objects where between that cognition and the objects there is a cleai distinction in stuff. Not that there is no stuff-distinction whatsoever between cognition and introspection What we emphasize here is that there is a bit too much of simi: larity between the two The Advaitin holds that cognition as a mental state is made, at least piedominantly, of sata which not only makes it phosphorescent but also works as a bridgeway from all that is object to subjectivity propeIf feelings and willings are also phosphorescent, they too are solar made of sattva, but they do not claim as much nearness to introspection as cognition does While cognition, when intisspected into, shows itself as dissociate from worldly objects and from relevant bodily states and proves that way its (greater) subjectivity, feelings and willings nevel show them selves as dissociate to that degree if there is any question of dissociation from worldly objects it is oblique of a sort, and from bodily states like organic scnsations and genes it
