________________
EXTERNAL WORLD.
987
the water-surface, he perceives the reflections of the trees standing on the brink of the water, with their tops pointing downwards; and yet they are not really in that condition. From all this we conclude that the Cognition of the Reflection does not apprehend the man's own face,-because what it envisages is something different from the face, like the Cognition of sound.(2081)
Bhadanta-Shubhagupta argues as follows: "For the proving of the Cognition being the only entity, the character of being Cognition has been adduced as the Reason; but it is not incompatible with the contrary; hence all that is said is nugatory".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXTS (2082-2084). * BEING COGNITION' IS 'LUMINOUSNESS'; AND THAT CAN HAVE NO PLACE IN THE APPREHENDED OBJECT '; --BECAUSE IT HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE CHARACTERS OF 'NOT ENVISAGING A FORM AND THE REST;HENCE ITS INVARIABLE CONCOMITANCE HAS BEEN
DULY ASCERTAINED.-(2082)
COMMENTARY.
The requisite invariable concomitance has already been established under Text 1999 above-'Not envisaging a form, or envisaging a form or envisaging something else, the Cognition cannot apprehend any external thing'. Consequently, the Reason put forward here cannot be regarded as Inconclusive'.
The Revered Teacher Dinnāga, for the purpose of determining the * basic cause', has declared as follows When that which is cognisable only in the internal (subjective) form appears as if it were external, that object must be regarded as existing in the form of the Cognition, and also as forming its basic cause ':- This serves to determine the objective element in that aspect of the Cognition which is apprehended.
The same Teacher has said again—'Or, it may be that by transferring the potency, the apprehension of the Object, in due course, brings about, for the bringing about of an effect similar to itself, a potency in the Cognition ; so there is no incompatibility':--This establishes the fact that the said Apprehension (of the Object) transfers to the immediately subsequent Cognition, the potency tending to produce an effect similar to itself, and thus becomes the cause.-(2082)
In connection with this, the same Bhadanta (Shubhagupta) argues as follows:-"Though the apprehended element may be the instrument of Sense-cognition, yet, inasmuch as that cannot figure in the Cognition itself, it could not be the object of the Sense-cognition ".
The answer to this is as follows: