________________
I ADHYAYA, I PÂDA, I.
117
feelings of fear (and this we know not to be the case). In conclusion we remark that in defining right knowledge as 'that which has for its antecedent another entity, different from its own antecedent non-existence,' you do not give proof of very eminent logical acuteness; for what sense has it to predicate of an entity that it is different from nonentity ?-For all these reasons Inference also does not prove an agñana which is a positive entity. And that it is not proved by Scripture and arthâpatti, will be shown later on. And the reasoning under Sa. II, 1, 4, will dispose of the argument which maintains that of a false thing the substantial cause also must be false.
We thus see that there is no cognition of any kind which has for its object a Nescience of 'inexplicable' nature.Nor can such an inexplicable entity be admitted on the ground of apprehension, erroneous apprehension and sublation (cp. above, p. 102). For that only which is actually apprehended, can be the object of apprehension, error and sublation, and we have no right to assume, as an object of these states of consciousness, something which is apprehended neither by them nor any other state of consciousness.
But in the case of the shell, &c., silver is actually appre. hended, and at the same time there arises the sublating consciousness “this silver is not real," and it is not possible that one thing should appear as another ; we therefore are driven to the hypothesis that owing to some defect, we actually apprehend silver of an altogether peculiar kind, viz. such as can be defined neither as real nor as unreal.'- This also we cannot allow, since this very assumption necessarily implies that one thing appears as another. For apprehension, activity, sublation, and erroneous cognition, all result only from one thing appearing as another, and it is not reasonable to assume something altogether nonperceived and groundless. The silver, when apprehended, is not apprehended as something inexplicable,' but as something real; were it apprehended under the former aspect it could be the object neither of erroneous nor of sublative cognition, nor would the apprehending person endeavour to seize it. For these reasons you (the anirva.
Digitized by
Digitized by Google