________________
-711158]
TRANSLATION
with reference to objects capable of being perceived at the time, that their non-perception leads to the inference of their nonexistence. And this capability of being perceived can never belong to such things as Nature, Spirit and the rest (which are by their nature imperceptible); and as such it cannot be right for intelligent men to infer their non-existence merely from their non-perception.
Question-Which of the above mentioned causes (of non-perception ) applies in the case of Nature etc.?
The answer is
Karika VIII The non-perception of these ( Nature and the rest ) The non-appre
orer is due to its subtlety, not to its nonhension of Nature existence; since it is actually apprehenddue to subtelty ed through its effects. and not to non
These effects existence. Its are the Great Principle, and the rest existence verified by its effects effects (some of which are similar. and
(some ) dissimilar to Nature. (58) “Why should we not," continues the objector, "attribute the non-apprehension of Nature to its non-existence, as we do in the case of the seventh kind of Rasa (in eatables )?"
The Author replies.—“Not due to its non-existence". Why? "Because it is apprehended through its effects." 'It' refers to Nature. The proofs of the apprehension of the Spirit will be adduced later on, in Kärikā XVII. If we find direct sense-perception inapplicable in the case of objects whose existence is ascertained by sound and valid means of know. ledge, what this proves is the incapacity of sense perception (and not the non-existence of the object itself).* The seventh
* This statement is with reference to Nature, the existence of which is proved through its effects the proof being based on the geno. ral proposition "Every effect must have a cause." The effects, Mahat etc., are perceptible; these must have a cause and this cause is Nature.
