________________
130
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER V.
The answer to this is as follows:-If it is so, then it has to be explained what the Brahman's form is prior to the mystic state. If It is always of the form of Light effulgent, then there can be no state which is not-mystic; as ex hypothesi, Brahman is ever of the nature of the effulgent light of Belf ; so that the Liberation of all beings would be accomplished without effort.
It is possible that the following might be urged:- Just as for you, Buddhists, during the state of Dream and the like, the Cognition, though one, appears in a variegated form,--so the Brahman also, even though one, appears diverse to persons whose chain of cognitions is not pure, through Ignorance."
That cannot be right; because as a matter of fact, apart from Brahman, there are none whose. Chain is not pure, to whom the said form could appear as stated.
"Brahman appears, by Itself, in that form."
In that case, no Liberation would be possible; because Brahman is Always of the nature of one single Cognition. As for us (Buddhists), Liberation is quite possible, as at that stage, there appears a distinct pure Cognition.
Turther, for you, apart from Brahman, there can be no Ignorance or Illusion under whose influence the Brahman would appear in the said form. And on account of Illusion being non-separate from it, it would be well-said that under the influence of that Illusion, Brahman appears as Itself in that form'!
It might be said that,"When it is said that 'It becomes cognised under the influence of Ignorance', what is meant is that It is of the nature of Ignorance (or Illusion).
If so, then the implication is all the clearer that there can be no Liberation: when the Eternal One Brahman has the nature of Ignorance, there can be no cessation of that Ignorance, which forms the essence of Brahman,by virtue of which cessation there could be Liberation.
If then, Ignorance is admitted to be something apart from Brahman, -oven so, it could not produce any effect upon Brahman, which is eternal and hence not susceptible to any addition to Its qualities. So that it cannot be right to assert that Ils appearance (in Cognition) is due to the influence of Ignorance; and thus there being no connection between Ignorance and Brahman, there can be no Birth and Rebirth.-Nor can it be right to assert that "It could be described as being neither real nor unreal"; because all things must fall within one or the other of these two; otherwise it would not be a Thing (Entity) at all. Nor will it be right to say that "it is because of its being a Non-entity that it is cognised in that form";as such an explanation would lead to absurdities.-If, oven in that state, it is called a State or Condition, in the sense that its nature is capable of fruitful action, we have nothing to say against that,
As for us (Buddhists), Ignorance (or Illusion) is only the Disposition of wrongful Attachment (or Yearning); and this Disposition is called & Faculty'; and this Faculty is only of the Essence of Cognition in the form of a Cause'. Hence what happens is that each preceding Cognition, --which is of the nature of Ignorance and serves as a Cause, -
