________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DEFINITION OF " SENSE-PERCEPTION."
673
as it has been explained that the self-recognition has the same form. Hence there is no incongruity at all.(1352)
-
Shankarasvumin urges the following argument :
TEXT (1353).
"As A MATTER OF FACT, THE MEANS OF COGNITION MUST BRING ABOUT AN EFFECT OTHER THAN ITSELF, BECAUSE IT IS AN ACTIVE AGENT, LIKE THE HATCHET" ;-IF THIS IS URGED
[THEN THE ANSWER IS AS FOLLOWS] (1353)
COMMENTARY.
* The Means of Cognition must be one that brings about an effect different from itself, because it is an active agent,-like the Hatchet, etc."-(1353)
The answer to the above is as follows:
TEXTS (1353-1355).
THE ARGUMENT IS FUTILE ; AS A DIFFERENT FRUIT HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONS ALREADY BXPLAINED (UNDER Tect 1348), THERE IS NO DIFFERENT FRUIT AT ALL.-As REGARDS THE MEANS OF COGNITION BEING AN ACTIVE AGENT',-THAT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE BY US. IF WEAT IS MEANT BY IT IS THAT IT IS productive; IF WHAT TS MEANT IS THAT IT IS THE Regulator, THEN THERE CAN BE NO OBJEOTION TO IT; AND IN THAT CASE THE REASON BECOMES INCONCLUSIVE, AS IT INDICATES NO INCON
GRUITY.-(1353-1355)
COMMENTARY. utile' because it seeks to prove what is already proved ; inasmuch as different 'fruit' or 'effect' has been already admitted in the form of
characterisation (specification).-The particle "hi' connotes reason for what is said).
The corroborative instance cited like the Hatcher', is one that is devoid of the Probandum': because it has been already shown that the Hatchet is the same as the Cut (vide Teat, 1348).
The premiss- because it is an active agent-is inadmissible' if what is meant is that it is productive of its effect ; if it is meant that it is the Regulator, -then that is accepted by us.
43
