________________
VEDANTA-SUTRAS.
instantaneous nature?—No, we reply. Since its nature, its origination, and its destruction are all alike fictitious, we have clearly to search for another agency capable of destroying that avidyâ which is the cause of the fiction of its destruction!-Let us then say that the essential nature of Brahman itself is the destruction of that cognition!-From this it would follow, we reply, that such 'terminating' knowledge would not arise at all; for that the destruction of what is something permanent can clearly not originate!Who moreover should, according to you, be the cognising subject in a cognition which has for its object the negation of everything that is different from Brahman ?—That cognising subject is himself something fictitiously superimposed on Brahman-This may not be, we reply: he himself would in that case be something to be negatived, and hence an object of the 'terminating' cognition; he could not therefore be the subject of cognition !-Well, then, let us assume that the essential nature of Brahman itself is the cognising subject!-Do you mean, we ask in reply, that Brahman's being the knowing subject in that 'terminating' cognition belongs to Brahman's essential nature, or that it is something fictitiously superimposed on Brahman? In the latter case that superimposition and the Nescience founded on it would persist, because they would not be objects of the terminating cognition, and if a further terminating act of knowledge were assumed, that also would possess a triple aspect (viz. knowledge, object known, and subject knowing), and we thus should be led to assume an infinite series of knowing subjects. If, on the other hand, the essential nature of Brahman itself constitutes the knowing subject, your view really coincides with the one held by us1. And if you should say that the terminating knowledge itself and the knowing subject in it are things separate from Brahman and themselves contained in the sphere of what is to be terminated by that knowledge, your statement would be no less absurd than if you were to say everything on the surface of the earth has been cut
"
1 According to which Brahman is not gƒânam, but géâtri.
146
Digitized by Google