________________
EXTERNAL WORLD.
963
Or, the non-difference may be stated conversely-the former is nondifferent from the latter.
What is meant is as follows:When a certain Object has no Cognition other than a certain Cognition, that Object is non-different from that Cognition ;-e.g. the Cognition of the Blue from itself, or the Second Moon, which figures in the Cognition of the man with defective eye-sight. The Cognition in question is the Cognition of the Cognition of the Blue; this reiterates the presence of the Probans; the Subject' or 'Minor Term' consists of the Blue Form and its Cognition ; and the non-difference of these two is the Probandum. The said 'constancy of their being found together' in the Probans. This is the meaning of the Probans that appears in the text of the Great Teacher which says- There must be non-difference between the Blue and its Cognition, because they are always found together
Bhadanta-Shubhagupta however has argued as follows "This Probans is contradictory'; because in common parlance, the torin together' is never used except with another thing; hence the Reason that they are cognised together' is contradictory”.
This is not right; that Probans is contradictory' which resides only where the Probandum is known to be absent; the Probans in question does not reside only where the Probandam is known to be absent; as it resides also where the Probandum is known to be present. For instance, among people, there is the idea that the two moons' (seen by the man with defective vision) are perceived together ; and yet there is no real difference between them; and people are found to use the term 'together' in such assertions as two moons are seen together'. Similarly in the case in question, the term 'to. gether' has been used on the basis of a difference assumed on the basis of the idon that the forn (Blue) appearing is external' is the second', the other', -though it is really non-different from the Cognition. In fact, all verbal usugo is not in exact accordance with the real state of things; whoroby the mere use of the term 'together would make the Inferential Indicative, which is really concomitant with a certain thing, something different.
The same Bhadanta-Shubhagupta says again:If the term 'together means one, then the Reason is 'inadmissible'; because the Blue and other things are not apprehended as one, in such shows as those of dancers, wrestlers, etc.-Nor are the Blue and the Cognition of Blue both apprehended by one (person); because even when the Blue is apprehended, the Cognitions of the same Blue, appearing in other series' or 'chains', are not apprehended. When again, the existence of all living beings and all Cognition-moments' aro apprehended by the Omniscient Being, -how can it be admitted that there is apprehension by one only 1-Then again, it is only when the appre. hension of others' is negatived, that there can be certainty regarding the apprehension of one ;-but the negation of the apprehension of others is not possiblo; because of what is diverse in nature, both affirmation and denial cannot be possible.--If the term 'together' is meant to convey the idea of being present at the same time, then the Reason becomes Inconclusive', in view of the Cognition cognised by the Buddha, and also of the Mind and Mind-effects. For instance, the Cognition in other chains which are
