________________
182
PROBLEM OF AVIDYA
[CH
the Buddhist himself has had to admit that the content is not different from the cognition as they are felt together as a matter of universal necessity. This shows that the content and the cognition are not numerically different. The felt difference therefore is illusory appearance. Certainly the relation cannot be one of absolute identity as in that case the content and cognition should be felt either as cognition or as content. It cannot also be one of absolute difference because in that case there cannot be relation at all. So the relation is neither one of identity nor of difference but something other than both. But as the Law of Excluded Middle rules out the postulation of an intermediate stage between the two contradictorily opposed terms, the felt relation must be accepted to be false appearance. The content thus being incapable of logical determination in terms of identity or difference must be declared to be equally false. The false difference of false contents cannot therefore be supposed to affect the identity of consciousness. The Buddhist admits the uniformity of consciousness acts but does not believe in their identity. He also believes that there has been no occasion in the past in which consciousness could be non-existent because in that case the present consciousness-unit would not be possible. He will also have to admit that there will be no occasion in future when consciousness can become defunct. The unreality of consciousness at any moment will make each and all the conscious units unreal, because an unreal consciousness cannot have a real consciousness as its condition or as its effect. So continuity and uniformity of consciousness have been admitted by the Buddhist. His denial of identity of consciousness is inspired by his belief in the doctrine of soul-lessness. The Vedāntist has asserted that there is no real ground for distinguishing one consciousness from another consciousness, as the only basis of such distinction viz. the plurality of contents has been proved to be unreal appearance. To return to the problem of the relation between cognition and object, the Buddhist theory of the causality of the object and cognition cannot be accepted. The Buddhist would infer the external object from the content of the cognition which he believes to be produced by the former. But as cognition is an eternal entity it cannot be the product of anything. So there will be no ground for inference of the external object.
It has been contended by a school of realists that the external object is the basis of cognition and the two must be different. The Vedāntist observes that this is a gratuitous assumption. It is under dispute whether our cognitions are directly conversant with an external object or not. To say that the external object is the basis of cognition is to assert the very problem in a different language. How do you know that it is the basis? If you answer that it is felt to be the object and
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
