________________
LOKĀYATA-MATERIALISM.
917
at the next moment, even though this latter Consciousness appears in a body other than that of the former; because the Body has only a momentary existence; hence the Reason put forward by the other party is 'Inconclusive'.
If, on the ground of their occurring in the same Chain, the two Bodies be regarded as one and the same, and on that ground the fact of the Consciousness appearing in the same' body be assurned, then, the same might be said in the other case also of the Bodies appearing during the stage intervening between the two physical bodies. Because the Body appearing in the other regions (at which the intervening bodies appear) is only one other state of the Chain of the same Body consisting of the five Receptacles' (Ayatanas),-just like the states of Childhood and old age.
In the second argument (of the Opponent) also, the Probans or Reason adduced is because it is Cognition (or Consciousness); and no evidence has been adduced to prove that the said Reason is not present where the contrary of the Probandum is known to be present; so that the Reason is clearly Inconclusive!, Doubtful. This fact was quite clear; hence the Author did not mention it.-(1913-1915)
The third argument adduced by the other party is that," the dying Consciousness of the man beset with affections can bring about another Consciousness, because it is Dying Consciousness,-like the Consciousness of the man free from affections ".--This is now taken up :
TEXT (1916).
WHY HAS IT BEEN HELD THAT THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE PERSON FREE FROM THE IMPURITIES OF THE AFFECTIONS IS NON-CONTIGUOUS ?
IF THIS VIEW IS HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF OTHERS,—THAT CANNOT BE RIGHT; BECAUSE THE AUTHORITY (AND VALIDITY) OF THESE DOCTRINES IS NOT
ACCEPTED (BY THE MATERIALIST) (1916)
COMMENTARY.
Non-contiguous ', -i.e. that which has no contiguity with another Consciousness.
What is meant to be shown by this is that the Corroborative Instance cited is 'not admitted by either one or the other of the two parties concerned. For instance, how does the Materialist know that in the case of the Arhats, the dying Consciousness does not bring about the contiguity of another Consciousness ?
It may be that under the Buddhist Philosophy, the following assertion is found-My life is at an end, I have led the life of the Student, I have done my duty, I know of no more birth',-and it is in accordance with this faith of the Buddhist that the Materialist has based his assertion that there is no contiguity of the dying Consciousness'.
12