________________
(B) MIMÄMSÄ DOCTRINE OF THE SELE'.
181
*If that is so, then in the case of Cognition also, the idea of its being transformed into the reflection of its object may be mere Illusion; so that there is no transformation into the reflected form."
The answer to this is provided in the following Text:
TEXT (262)—(Second line).
IN THE CASE OF COGNITION, THERE CANNOT BE EVEN ILLUSION; AS
THERE IS ABSENCE OF DIFFERENCE.—(262)
COMMENTARY.
It is not right that there should be Illusion in the case of Cognition. What is implied by the term 'even' is that it is not only transformation into Reflection that is not right ;-why-as there is absence of difference ; i.e. because there is no difference. In the case of the Rock Crystal and other things, it is right that there should be Illusion, as it is possible for the illusory cognition to be different from those things; in the case of Oognition, however, there cannot be another Cognition in the form of an Ilusion; as all Cognition is held by the Minänsaka) to be one. Nor can it be said that the Cognition itself appears in the form of an Illusion; as Cognition has been held to be eternal (which Illusion can never be).-(202)
It has been argued above (under Text 247). for the purpose of proving the one-ness and eternality of Cognition that'Cognition is aluxys recognised as being of the nature of Intelligence, etc. etc.
This is answered in the following Text:
TEXT (263).
THE CHARACTER Or being different from non-cognition is ONE TEAT IS
COMMON TO ALL COGNITIONS ; AND TIN SAID RECOGNTTION COULD PROOEED ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPOSITION OF THAT COMMON CHARACTER, -EVEN UNDER THE VIEW OF COGNITIONS
BEING MANY AND DIVERSE.-(263)
COMMENTARY. The Recognition that has been put forward is Inconclusive: because the said fact of Recognition can be explained, in regard to all Cognitions, as being due to the imposition of the character of being different from sout is not cognition;i.e. such things as the Jar and the like ;-and this would not be incompatible even with the viow of Cognitions being many and diverse. - The following has to be definitely understood: It is only when Cognitions are many, -and not when they are not many,—that the said Recognition can be explained as being brought about by the exclusion of all that is not homo. geneous to it'. For instance, in the case of such superimposed (assumed) Oognitions as have no real background, even when a diversity among the
