________________
EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION. 1475
bringing pain to himself; because there can be hatred against what is not harmful to what is his own, or against what removes that harm.
Similarly with regard to Name, etc. also.
From all this it is clear that the notion of Soul', which has persisted from time without beginning, having been brought about, the repeated notion of similar "Souls' is what produces the notion of one's own'; these two produce Love for one's own': this produces Hatred and the rest; from this positive and negative concomitance, it is clearly known to all men, down to the very cowherd, that all these Afflictions-Love, etc. have their root in the notion of one's own', which proceeds from the notion of one's self or soul.
Contrary to this idea of 'Soul' is the idea of No-Soul '; because this rests upon a form quite the reverse of the former. It is incompatible too that both these-Soul and No-Soulshould be identical or co-exist in any one Chain'; because these are as contrary to each other as the notions of
serpent' and 'rope' with regard to the same object. Thus the doctrine of No-soul' being contrary to the doctrine of 'Soul ', it becomes contrary to-incompatible with-Lovo, Hatred and other Afflictions also ; just as Fire is contrary to the shivering caused by cold.-Consequently, when one has directly realised the doctrine of No-soul which is incompatible with all Defects and Aberrations, its contrary-in the shape of the whole host Love and other defects-ceases to exist ; just as Darkness ceases in a place flooded with light. It is in this way that the cover of Afflictions' becomes set aside by the realisation of the doctrine of No-soul'.
The argument may be formulated thus When the contrary of a certain thing obtains a footing at a certain place, then that thing itself cannot secure a footing, e.g. Darkness does not secure a footing at a place flooded with lamp-light ;-there is perception of No-soul', which is contrary to the whole host of defecte, in the Person who has realised the doctrine of No-soul'; hence there is apprehension of the contrary.
The following might be urged " When the mind is obsessed with the idea of No-Soul', there is no room for the appearance of its contrary, the idea of the Soul'; similarly there is no room for the appearance of the idea of No-soul' when the Mind is obsessed with the idea of the Soul'; because the incompatibility rests equally in both. Consequently (as practically all men have their minds obsessed with the idea of Soul") no one could have the idea of No-soul' at all, and to that extent your Reason is 'inadmissible',There may or may not be the idea of 'No-soul '; even as these two Soul and 'No-soul' are not absolutely destructive of one another, as is the case with Love and Hate, or Pleasure and Pain. Then again, what you have sought to prove is the absoluto destruction (removal) of one by the other, and not mere absence of co-existence; hence your Reason is also 'Incon. clusive'. As a matter of fact, too, we find Love, Hate and the rest appearing in their full force even in good men. For this reason also, your Reason is Inconclusive '.”
It is not so, -we reply. If it were absolutely impossible for the conception of the doctrine of 'No-soul' to appear in the chain of a man whose
