________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF 'SELF-SUFFICIENT VALIDITY'. 1363
(3) If the Absence be regarded as proved by something else, through Apprehension,--that also is not possible ;-why 1-because it is of the nature of Negation, and there can be Apprehension only of what is a positive entity.
(4) Nor lastly can it be right to hold the view that the Absence is proved through Non-apprehension. Because that would involve an Infinite Regress. For instance, this Non-apprehension also being negative in character, how is it proved? By itself? Or through something else! All these questions arise here. It cannot be by itself, because of the objections urged above; nor can it be through something else, as that would involve an Infinito Regress.-(3059-3060)
The said 'Infinite Regress' is pointed out in the following:
TEXT (3061).
IF THE ABSENCE OF DEFECTS AND THAT OF THE TWO KINDS OY INVALID COGNITION ARE PROVED BY Non-apprehension,--AND THIS absence of apprehension IS PROVED BY ANOTHER Nonapprehension, --TREN THERE IS INFINITE
REGRESS.—(3061)
COMMENTARY.
Dopā, etc. etc. The compound is to be expounded as the absence of Defects, and of the two kinds of Invalid Cogaition':-(3061)
The following Texts point out the objections against the view that the absence of Defects, etc.' is of the nature of Relative Negation (the second alternative suggested in the Introduction to Text 3059) :
TEXTS (3062-3065). IY THE ABSENCE IS OF THE NATURE OF Relative NEGATION, THEN ITS
COGNITION WOULD ONLY BE THE NEGATION OF SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF; SO THAT THE Cognition of the absence of defects WOULD BE OF THE NATURE OF THE Cognition of excellences ; AND IT WOULD THUS COME TO BE OF THE NATURE OF THE COGNITION OF THE INTENDED VALID COGNITION. THE COGNITION OF THE ABSENCE OF THE TWO KINDS OF INVALID COGNITION ALSO WOULD TURN OUT TO BE OF THE CONTRARY NATURE, OR, IN CASE THE ABSENCE OF THE TWO KINDS OF INVALID COGNITION WERE COGNISED INDEPENDENTLY BY ITSELF, -HOW COULD YOU SECURE THE CONVICTION THAT THE REST OF IT IS VALID ?-IY IT BE URGED THAT “THE CONVICTION IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT WELL-KNOWN FACTS COULD NOT BE EXPLICABLE OTHERWISE", THEN THIS
