________________
CHAPTER XXIII.
• External World."
COMMENTARY.
Under the Introductory Texts, Prafitya-samutpäda', "Intervolved Chain of Causation', has been described as pratibimbâdi-sannibham, * resembling the Reflection of things'. In support of this assertion the Idealist sets forth as follows:- This entire universo comprising the threefold phenomena (Subjective or Immaterial, Objective or Material, and Imaginary or Fictitious) is mero Ideation'; and this Idention or Idea, through the diversity of chains varying with each individual Being', is endless, and impure--for persons who have not realised the Truth,but pure. --for those whose "Karma' has been wiped off ; it is in perpetual flux (being destroyed every inoment), and affects all living beings; it is not one and unmodifiable, as held by the followers of the Upanişads' (Vedāntins).
Such is the view of the Idealist Buddhists.
The idea of the entire universe being mere Idea is got at by the following two methods :-(1) Anything external, in the form of Earth, etc., which could be apprehended, being non-existent, there can be no apprehenderor (2) even though oxistent, in another Chain', the two factors would be devoid of the character of the approhender' and 'apprehended'-The argument, may be formulated as follows:-Every Cognition is devoid of both apprehended' and 'apprehender' because it is Cognition,-- like the Cognition of the Reflected Image -and the Visual and other Perceptions of the Healthy man are Cognition ;-hence this is a Rousou based upon the nature of things.
The Reason cannot be regurded as 'not concomitant' (with the Probandum); because, for the Cognition, there does not exist any such apprehended object as the external world ', in the shape of the Earth, etc. ; because such a world would be devoid of one as well as of several forms. This argument may be formulated as follows :-That which is not of one or several forms cannot be regarded by an intelligent man as existent', -e.g. the
sky-lotus' ;-and the Earth, eto. postulated by other people are devoid of one and several forms; hence there is non-apprehension in them of the wider characters, no third alternative possible, existence is invariably concomitant with the presence of one or several forms ;-and the impossibility of the relation of pervaded and pervader' (that which is concomitant, and that with which it is concornitant) would be the reason that would reject any ides to the contrary; hence the Reason adduced cannot be regarded as
Inconclusive'.-Nor can it be regarded as 'Contradictory'; because it is present everywhere where the Probandum is known to be present.
In bringing forward against this Reason, the charge of being 'inad. missible', the Opponent has argued thus-You may accept the principle