________________
XVI. The Buddhist theory of cognition
111
And a particular effect does not fit without a particular cause. (143) And the external object does not exist. Therefore the reason here is the variety of the suffusions themselves', - Is that variety of the suffusions different from the form of the awareness, or not different? If not different, then since the form of the awareness is one, what mutual difference have they (the suffusions)? If different 51), why the dislike for the object, so that a presentation common to all the world is denied?
So in this way is established a distinction between the cognition and the object. And the working out is as follows: The blue, etc., subjected to dispute is separate from cognition because they (the two) are subject of contradictory attributes. And the contradictory attributes of which they are subject (are) 'the cognition is inside the body, and the object outside; the cognition has occurrence at a posterior time, and the object at a prior time; the cognition originates from the self, and the object from its own causes; the cognition is in the form of illumination. and the object in the form of the non-intelligent'. Hence on acceptance of the non-duality of cognition a presentation of an object as experienced externally does not invite agreement in any way at all. Nor can the seen be denied.
This is why the author of the Laudation says: 'on the path of non-duality of consciousness there is no consciousness of objects'. Consciousness (samvit): 'correctly' (samyak), without error, 'is known' (vidyate), is reached, i. e. the own-nature of an entity, by it; so 'consciousness'. But on the alternative of self-consciousness, 'being conscious', consciousness, cognition; thereof non-duality; duality, the being of two, simply two-ness is 'duality'. (The Suffix an is used in case of something with identical meaning, because of belonging to the group prajñā)). Nonduality' is 'not duality'; because of rejection of external object unity, non-duality; 'nonduality of consciousness', simply cognition as single, is real; there is admission of external objects'. That is the meaning. Of this the path, the route, the path of non-duality of consciousness'; on that, on the alternative of the doctrine of the non-duality of cognition, that is what it comes to. What follows? In regard to this he says: (there is) not consciousness of objects; this presentation of an object through extraversion, which is manifestly experienced, does not fit - this is corollary and it has just been brought home. And this being so, what follows? He states: "Chopped away, fallen to pieces, is the phantasmagoria (indrajala) of the Sugata-Lord": the Sugata, son of Maya; the with him connected, by him invented, mass of entities momentarily perishing, etc., is phantasmagoria, like a phantasmagoria, because of creating confusion of mind. All this 'Sugata-phantasmagoria' is chopped away, fallen to pieces; (144) first cut away, and afterwards fallen to pieces. As something, a bunch of grass, etc., only after being cut away, rots away, perishes, so this illusion invented by him, like grass cut up by the edged knife of logic, falls to pieces. Or else, as an illusion created by a clever illusionist, having, by exhibiting as marvel such and such unreal entity, deceived such people rather conceited in intellect, afterwards, like a rainbow, totally passes into a state of being cut away and waning, so this Sugata's invention of acceptance of such and such Demonstrants, and their such and such non-distinction from fruit, momentary extinction, the cognition being the cause of the thing, non-duality of cognition, though deluding all people ignorant of the Demonstration, crumbles, when logically considered, to pieces. And here the word 'Sugata' has the sense of ridiculing; for the Buddhists wish to expiain Sugata by fine in his way, i. p. his cognition. And so, Ho! his having fine cognition in setting forth such illogical logic. This is the meaning of the verse.
st) If the 'suffusion' is to be in each case a special element differing in the cognition, why substitute it for an 'object'?
52) Hemacandra's Grammar, VII. ii. 136 (M. L.). The Suffix a signifies the -o in avaita (from dono, and the rule states that the signification is unchanged.
