________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DEFINITION OF " SENSE-PEROEPTION". 661
because while it would be cognisable if it were there, no such notion is cognised at all.
This same idea is made clear in the sentence Roen when the man, etc. etc.':- Continuous'-is to be construed with perception of the Two Moons.
For this same reason the Premiss, that 'illusion is an aberration produced by the aberration of the Senge-organ', also is not Inconclusive'. As this also is not interrupted, --in view of which the case of the Mule would render it false, inconclusive.
As regards the notions of Entity, Universal' and so forth, -when the person retraets them by his own wish, there is cessation of these also.
But in the case of the Illusions like that of the Hair-tuit', there can be no retraction at will; hence our premiss is not Inconclusive.
It might be argued that,"even in the case of Perception through the Senses, there can be cessation at will, by closing one's eyes for instance".
The Visual Perception does not cease immediately on the appearance of the wish; in fact what is bronght about by the man's wish is only the closing of the eyes, and it is only when the Eyes have ceased to function that the Visual Perception ceases. In the case of mental Illusion, on the other hand, it ceases directly after the wish of the man; hence the two cases are not analogous. It has to be borne in mind that, when the Eyes are fixed upon & thing, even though the man may not wish to look at the thing, the thing is actually seen; so that the wish has no direct influence upon the Visual or other Perceptions.--(1321-1323)
TEXT (1324)
THERE ARE OTHERS WHO DECLARE TRAT-NOTIONS LIKE THE YELLOW CONCH-SHELL', EVEN THOUGH ILLUSORY, ARE VALID, -INASMUCH AS THEY ARE NOT INCONGRUENT WITH EFFECTIVE
ACTION."-(1324)
COMMENTARY
There are some people belonging to our own party (Buddhists) who do not wish to have the qualification not-erroneous' (in the definition of Sense-perception); because they argue that even the illusory idea of the Yellow conch-shell'is Sense-perception. Because it cannot be Inference, as it is not brought about by an Inferential Indicative. And that it is valid is clear from the fact that it is not incongruent with reality. It was for this reason that the Teacher Dinnāga did not introduce this qualification not erroneous '-in his definition of Sense-perception. Error. Illusion, Ignorance,
