________________
EXTERNAL WORLD.'
965
consideration regarding the wrongness of Cognitions ; because each Cognition is cognised by itself.
Or, there may be Cognition of the Cognition of others by the Buddha ; even so, the Reason is not . Inconclusive '; because there is always differentiation. Even when there is diversity in the apprehension of two things, there is always differentiation ; in the case of Cognitions however, when appearing in the same Chain', there is no diversity in their specific Individualities. Hence what is meant is that there is apprehension of the Cognition only when there is apprehension of the Object. The apprehension of the Cognition of the Blessed Lord however is not always the same as the apprehension of the Cognitions occurring in other Chains ', -there is another Cognition also ; because the separateness (difference) of His own Cognition is also distinctly apprehended. For this same reason, the Reason does not become wrong, in view of Colour and Light; because Light is perceived also alone by itself; and Colour also is perceived by certain animals (e.g. Cats), even when there is no Light. Thus then, the Reason, not being present where the Probandum is known to be absent, cannot be regarded as
Inconclusive':-(2030-2031)
-
Y
The following might be urged :-"Even though the presence of your Probans where the Probandum is known to be absent is not known with certainty,-yet it is suspected all the same ; and even so the Probans becomes
Inconclusive'; as its exclusion from the contrary of the Probandum is doubtful. Because, inasmuch as the relation of Subject' and Object! (between the Cognition and the Cognised) is definite, the fact of their being apprehended together' (Concomitance) is open to an explanation other than their non-difference; because the Cognition is always of the nature of the apprehender, as it has the character of apprehending things; and the Object is always the apprehended ; and the fact of these two being always together is due to their being dependent upon the same set of circumstances.In the case of the Eye and other sense-organs, it is found that, even though they are equally produced together, they cannot be the cognised object; simply because they do not have that character. Because, as a matter of fact, what the causal circumstances bring about is the Cognition only in the form of the apprehension of the Blue and other objects, not in that of the appre. hension of such objects as the Eye, etc. ; the, Blue, etc. also are produced in the form in which they are apprehended by that Cognition; not so the Eye, etc.-All this has been declared as follows: There is no apprehender other than Cognition, nor without the visible and other objects ; it is on this ground that the fact of the Blue Object and its Cognition being apprehended together rests, not upon their non-difference ;-the antecedent circumstances would bring about the Cognition of the object-moment, in the same way as Light does that of Colour; and in this way they would be apprehended together". The answer to this is as follows:
J5
