________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DEFINITION OF " SENSE-PERCEPTION".
667
Answer: The same applies, etc. etc.-Except Buddhists, there are no philosophers for whom Inference is, in reality, devoid of objectivity: hence, for one who infers the pain of other persons (just as the Mystic who perceives it), there would be the same experiencing of pain [so that the said incon. gruity would be there all the same]. (1332-1339)
TEXT (1340).
[SAYS Sharikarauimin]-"PLEASURE, ETO. ARE APPREHENDED ONLY AS * PLEASURE, ETC.', TREY ARE NOT APPREHENDED AS 'COGNITION '; CONSEQUENTLY LIKE THE JAR, ETC., THEY CANNOT
BE Cognition."-(1340)
COMMENTARY. Shankarasinīmin says :-* Pleasure, etc. cannot be of the nature of Cognition, hecause they are never spoken of as Cognition ;-just like the Jar, etc." -(1340)
The objection to this view is as follows:
TEXT (1341). IF DIFFERENCE IS TO BE ACCEPTED ON THE BASIS OF CONVENTION, THEN COGNITION ITSELF MAY NOT BE SPOKEN OF ASCOGNITION '; -AND ON THE BASIS OF THAT, COGNITION WOULD BECOME
NON-COGNITION.-(1341)
COMMENTARY If difference of nature were based upon Convention (i.e. the use of words, which is purely a matter of Convention).-then, there may be some one who might set up the Convention that the Cognition should be spoken of as 'non-cognition', and in accordance with this Convention, Cognition would become Not-cognition, for you -(1341)
TEXT (1342) IP IT BE URGED THAT-" BEING CLEARLY OF THE NATURE OF LIGHT, IT COULD NEVER BE AS ALLEGED "-THEN, YOU ARE FACED WITH THIS CONTING ENOY-IS NOT ALL THIS THE SAME IN THE
CASE OF PLEASURE AND PAIN ALSO 1-(1342)
COMMENTARY.
If the view is that—"Cognition, being of the nature of Light, can never be non-cognition ",—then the answer is that all this is equally there in the case of Pleasure and Pain also.
The Reason also is false, Inconclusive, so this is nothing.-(1342)
