________________
916
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXII.
of being cognised by both cannot be admitted by the Idealist; as for him what is cognised by the Cognition is always its own appearance; as in the case of the man of defective vision seeing two moons.
Then again, when a particular object is cognised, the Cognition is clearly found to disappear immediately after its appearance ; hence, if the Body were held to be of the same nature as the Cognition, it should have to be regarded as momentary (like the Cognition).-(1911-1912)
Thus then it has been proved that the Subsistence of Cognitions in the Body cannot be admitted to be of the nature of 'identity' (or Sameness'). If the subsistence of the Cognition in the Body be held to consist in its being produced from it, then the question is-is it produced from it' in the sense that the Mental Cognition has the Body for its Receptacle (or Substratum), --in the way that Visual Perception is produced by the Eye which serves as its receptacle ?-or, is it produced from it in the sense that it is inseparable from it as the Smoke is inseparable from Fire-Both these forms of Subsistence' are inadmissible. Because Mental Cognition does not rest in the Body, like Sense-Cognition; as it does not always follow the changes in the Body. Nor is it invariably concomitant with inseparable from-it; because in the case of 'formless negations, it is held that there are cognitions without the Body.
Though the facts are so, yet, for the sake of argument, the Author admits that the Reason is 'admissible', but proceeds to show that even so, it is Inconclusive' (Doubtful) :
TEXTS (1913-1915).
IF THE SAID “SUBSISTENCE' BE HELD TO BE DUE EITHER TO THE COGNI
TION BEING PRODUCED IN THE BODY AS ITS SUBSTRATUM, -OR TO ITS INSEPARABILITY FROM THE BODY, THE REASON PUT FORWARD IS WRONG (INCONCLUSIVE, DOUBTFUL). THE BODY UNDERGOING DESTRUCTION EVERY MOMENT, THE PREVIOUS CONSCIOUSNESS BRINGS ABOUT AN UNBROKEN CONTINUITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN SUCH SUOCEEDING BODIES. IX, BY REASON OF THEIR OCCURRING IN THE SAME CHAIN, THE TWO BODIES BE HELD TO BE NOT DIFFERENT FROM ANOTHER, THEN IN THE OTHER CASE ALSO, THERE COULD BE NO DIFFERENCE, ON THE SAME GROUND OF OCCURRENCE IN THE SAME CHAIN.-(1913–1915)
COMMENTARY.
As a matter of fact, there is no incompatibility between the contiguity of other Consciousnesses and the presence of the Consciousness in the Body ; for instance, the Consciousness at the moment preceding death brings about contiguity with the Consciousness in the living body coming into existence