________________
EXTERNAL WORLD.
971
-and yet it apprehends forms ; in the same manner it would apprehend the external thing also "-(2041)
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXTS (2042-2044).
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE FORM OF THE MIND AND MENTAL EFFECTS IS
not-common (SPECIFIC) : HENCE THERE CAN BE NO APPREHENSION OF OTHER FORMS IN THE REAL (PRIMARY) SENSE OF THE TERM ; THEREFORE THE NAME 'APPREHENSION' COULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE APPREHENSION OF OBJECTS ONLY IN THE SECONDARY (FIGURATIVE) SENSE, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CONDITIONS AS BEING DEPENDENT UPON THE SAME CAUSAL CIRCUMSTANCES', THE RELATION OF CAUSE AND EFFECT AND SO FORTH. AN ENTITY HOWEVER WHICH HAS NO FORM, CANNOT BE DEPENDENT UPON THE SAME FORM', NOR COULD THE OTHER CONDITION BE FULFILLED. HENCE OF SUCH AN ENTITY, THERE CAN BE NO 'APPREHENSION , EVEN IN THE FIGURATIVE SENSR."-(2042-2044)
COMMENTARY
As a matter of fact, of what is non-objective, there can be no Apprehension in the primary sense of this term. Because of the Mind and Mental Effects the only form or nature that figures in 'Happiness, etc. and which is spoken of as 'I', is specific-not-common-and is of the nature of Light; and it is this figuring that constitutes their apprehension' in the primary sense. Hence of non-objective things other than Cognition, which are not of the nature of Cognition, there can be no such apprehension in the primary sense; simply because they are non-objective.-Nor can the same be there in the secondary sense; because there is no basis for such secondary signification. Because the only possible grounds for secondary signification are dependence upon the same causal circumstances, the relation of Cause and Effect and similarity of form,--this last being indicated by the term and so forth' in the text. And none of these is possible in the case of what is non-objective. There can be no other ground for the figurative use of the name 'Apprehension':-What happens therefore, in such cases, is only that through Nescience (Ilusion) a Wrong Cognition comes about indicating a non-objective form, which really does not form the objective (of the Cog. nition at all).—(2042-2044)
The opponent says--" That same false cognition would be the basis of the figurative use of the name to the Apprehension of the unreal form ".
The answer to that is as follows: