________________
924
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XXII.
hence this Subjective Consciousness cannot be regarded as subsisting in the Body; when one thing does not beerme directly modified upon the modifiention of another thing, it cannot be regarded as subsisting in this latter
-0.g. the Horse, which is not modified by the modification of the Cow (does not subsist in the Cow); on the modification of the Body. Subjective Consciousness does not always and directly become modified, in the state of Paralysis, etc. ;-honce there is non-apprehension of the wider chnracter (which implies the absence of the loss wide). 1934)
The following test proceeds to show that the character of subsisting in something is invariably concomitant with the character of becoming alirectly modified on the modification of the latter thing:
TEXTS (1935-1936).
IN CASES OF AFFECTIONS OF THE EYE, WHENEVER THERE IS THE SLIGHTEST
DETECT IN THE EYE, THE COGNITION BASED UPON THE EYE APPEARS IN A DEFECTIVE FORM.-THUS, EVEN WHEN THE BODY HAS PERISHED, THE SUBJECTIVE CONSCIOUS. NESS, WHICH DOES NOT SUBSIST IN IT, CONTINUES TO EXIST THROUGH THE FORCE OF ITS OWN CAUSE ;-THERE CAN BE NO INCON
GRUITY IN THIS.-(1935-1936)
COMMENTARY.
As the wider charactor is absent, it is proved that the Subjective Consciousness does not subsist in the Body.
Thus therefore-aven on the cessation of the Body, the Subjective Consciousness shall not cease. There is no incongruity in this.When one thing does not subsist in another, it does not necessarily cease upon the cessation of the latter ; 0.g. the cossation of the Cow does not lead to the cessation of the Gavaya ;--and the Body is not the substratum of Subjective Consciousness; hence there is non-apprehension of the wider character. - (1935-1936)
It has been argued above (under Text 1869) that" when the other body has not been seen, how can it be understood that the required substratum is the Body that is born subsequently ? "
The answer to that is as follows: