If non-existence be its nature the same objection will accrue; as it is said--

"Necessity of a cause befits not the existent, ether and the like, for instance;

"No cause is efficacious of a non-existent effect, flowers of the sky and the like, for instance."

The two remaining alternatives, as self-contradictory, are inadmissible. It has accordingly been laid down by the venerated Buddha in the Ala?karavatara[34]--

"Of things discriminated by intellect, no nature is ascertained;[35]

"Those things are therefore shown to be inexplicable and natureless."

And again--

"This matter perforce results, which the wise declare, No sooner are objects thought than they are dissipated."

That is to say, the objects are not determined by any one of the four alternatives. Hence it is that it has been said--

"A religious mendicant, an amorous man, and a dog have three views of a woman's person, respectively that it is a carca.s.s, that it is a mistress, and that it is a prey."

In consequence, then, of these four points of view, when all ideas are come to an end, final extinction, which is a void, will result.

Accordingly we have overtaken our end, and there is nothing to be taught to us. There consequently remain only two duties to the student--interrogation and acceptance. Of these, interrogation is the putting of questions in order to attain knowledge not yet attained.

Acceptance is a.s.sent to the matters stated by the sacred teacher.

These (Bauddha nihilists) are excellent in a.s.senting to that which the religious teacher enounces, and defective in interrogation, whence their conventional designation of Madhyamikas (or mediocre).

Certain other Buddhists are styled Yogacharas, because while they accept the four points of view proclaimed by the spiritual guide, and the void of external things, they make the interrogation: Why has a void of the internal (or baselessness of mental phenomena) been admitted? For their technology is as follows:--Self-subsistent cognition must be allowed, or it will follow that the whole universe is blind. It has conformably been proclaimed by Dharmakirti: "To one who disallows perception the vision of objects is not competent."

An external _percipibile_ is not admissible in consequence of the following dilemma. Does the object cognitively apprehensible arise from an ent.i.ty or not? It does not result from an ent.i.ty, for that which is generated has no permanence. Nor is it non-resultant, for what has not come into being is non-existent. Or (we may proceed) do you hold that a past object is cognitively apprehensible, as begetting cognition? If so, this is childish nonsense, because it conflicts with the apparent presentness of the object, and because on such a supposition the sense organs (and other imperceptible things) might be apprehended. Further (we ask), Is the _percipibile_ a simple atom or a complex body? The latter it cannot be, this alternative being ejected by the dilemma as to whether part or whole is perceived. The former alternative is equally impossible, an atom being supersensible, and it not being able to combine simultaneously with six others; as it has been said--

"If an atom could simultaneously combine with six, it would have six surfaces;

"And each of these being taken separately, there would be a body of atomic dimension."

Intellect, therefore, as having no other _percipibile_ but itself, is shown to be itself its own _percipibile_, self-subsistent, luminous with its own light, like light. Therefore it has been said--

"There is naught to be objectified by intellect; there is no cognition ulterior thereto;

"There being no distinction between percept and percipient, intellect shines forth of itself alone."

The ident.i.ty of percipient and percept is inferrible, thus: That which is cognised by any cognition is not other than that cognition, as soul, for instance, is not other than the cognition of soul; and blue and other momentary objects are cognised by cognitions. For if there were a difference (between percept and percipient), the object could not now have any connection with the cognition, there being no ident.i.ty to determine a constancy of connection, and nothing to determine the rise of such a connection. As for the appearance of an interval between the object and subject consciousnesses, this is an illusion, like the appearance of two moons when there is only one. The cause of this illusion is ideation of difference in a stream without beginning and without interruption; as it has been said--

"As invariably cognised together, the blue object and the cognition thereof are identical;

"And the difference should be accounted for by illusory cognitions, as in the example of the single moon."

And again--

"Though there is no division, the soul or intellect, by reason of illusory perceptions,

"Appears to possess a duality of cognitions, of percepts and of percipient."

Nor must it be supposed that (on this hypothesis) the juice, the energy, and the digestion derivable from an imaginary and an actual sweetmeat will be the same; for it cannot be questioned that though the intellect be in strictness exempt from the modes of object and subject, yet there is competent to it a practical distinction in virtue of the succession of illusory ideas without beginning, by reason of its possessing diverse modes percept and percipient, conformably to its illusory supposition of practical agency, just as to those whose eyes are dim with some morbid affection a hair and another minute object may appear either diverse or identical; as it has been said--

"As the intellect, not having object and subject modes, appears, by reason of illusory cognitions,

"Illuded with the diverse forms of perception, percept and percipient;

"So when the intellect has posited a diversity, as in the example of the differences of the cognition of a hair and the like,

"Then it is not to be doubted that it is characterised as percipient and percept."

Thus it has been evinced that intellect, as affected by beginningless ideation, manifests itself under diverse forms.

When, therefore, by constancy of reflection (on the four points of view) aforesaid, all ideation has been interrupted, there arises knowledge purged from the illusions which take the form of objects, such illusions being now melted away; and this is technically called _Mahodaya_ (the grand exaltation, emanc.i.p.ation).

Others again (the Sautrantikas) hold that the position that there is no external world is untenable, as wanting evidence. Nor (they contend) can it be maintained that invariability of simultaneous cognition is an evidence, for this simultaneous cognition which you accept as proof of the ident.i.ty of subject and object is indecisive, being found in dubious and in contrary instances. If you rejoin (they proceed): Let there be a proof of this ident.i.ty, and let this proof be invariability of simultaneous cognition,--we refuse this, because inasmuch as cognition must ultimately have some object, it is manifested in duality, and because such invariability of simultaneity as to time and place is impossible. Moreover (they continue), if the object, blue or whatever it be, were only a form of cognition, it should be presented as _Ego_, not as _Hoc aliquid_, because the cognition and the object would be identical. Perhaps you will say: A blue form consisting of cognition is illusorily presented as external and as other than self, and consequently the Ego is not suggested; and so it has been said--

"This side of knowledge which appears external to the other portion,

"This appearance of duality in the unity of cognition is an illusion."

And again--

"The principle to be known as internal also manifests itself as if it were external."

To this we reply (say the Sautrantikas): This is untenable, for if there be no external objects, there being no genesis of such, the comparison "as if they were external" is illegitimate. No man in his senses would say, "Vasumitra looks like the son of a childless mother." Again, if the manifestation of ident.i.ty be proved by the illusoriness of the presentment of duality, and the presentment of duality be proved illusory by the manifestation of ident.i.ty, you are involved in a logical circle. Without controversy we observe that cognitions take external things, blue or whatever they may be, as their objects, and do not take merely internal modifications as such, and we see that men in their everyday life overlook their internal states. Thus this argument which you adduce to prove that there is difference between subject and object, turns out a mere absurdity, like milky food made of cow-dung. When then you say "as if it were external," you must already suppose an external _percipibile_, and your own arrow will return upon you and wound you.

If any one object that the externality of an object synchronous with the cognition is inadmissible, we (Sautrantikas) reply that this objection is inadmissible, inasmuch as the subject in juxtaposition to the sensory imposes its form upon the cognition then in production, and the object is inferrible from the form thus imposed. The interrogation and response on this point have been thus summarised--

"If it be asked, How can there be a past _percipibile_? They recognise perceptibility,

"And a competent inferribility of the individual thing is its imposition of its form."

To exemplify. As nourishment is inferred from a thriving look, as nationality is inferred from language, and as affection is inferred from flurried movements, so from the form of knowledge a knowable may be inferred. Therefore it has been said--

"With half (of itself) the object moulds (the cognition) without losing the nature of a half;

"The evidence, therefore, of the recognition of a knowable is the nature of the knowable."

For consciousness of the cognition cannot be the being of the cognition, for this consciousness is everywhere alike, and if indifference were to attach itself to this, it would reduce all things to indifference. Accordingly the formal argument for the existence of external things: Those things which while a thing exists appear only at times, all depend upon something else than that thing; as, for instance, if I do not wish to speak or to walk, presentments of speaking or walking must suppose others desirous of speaking or walking; and in like manner the presentments of activity under discussion, while there exists the recognition of a subject of them, are only at times manifested as blue and so forth. Of these, the recognition of a subject is the presentation of the Ego, the manifestation as blue and so forth is a presentment of activity, as it has been said--

"That is a recognition of a subject which is conversant about the Ego:

"That is a presentment of activity which manifests blue and the rest."

Over and above, therefore, the complement of subject-recognitions, let it be understood that there is an external object world perceptible, which is the cause of presentments of activity; and that this external world does not rise into being only from time to time on occasion of presentments resulting from ideation.

According to the view of the Sensationalists (_vijnanavadin_), ideation is a power of generating such and such sensations (or presentments of activity) in subject-recognitions which exist as a single stream. The maturescence of this power is its readiness to produce its effect; of this the result is a presentment (or sensation); the antecedent momentary object (sensation) in the mental train is accepted as the cause, no other mental train being admitted to exercise such causality. It must therefore be stated that all momentary objects (fleeting sensations) in the subject-consciousness are alike able to bring about that maturescence of ideation in the subject-consciousness, which maturescence is productive of presentments of activity. If any one (of these fleeting sensations) had not this power, none would possess it, all existing alike in the stream of subject-recognitions. On the supposition that they all have this power, the effects cannot be diversified, and therefore any intelligent man, however unwilling, if he has a clear understanding, must decide, without putting out of sight the testimony of his consciousness, that to account for the occasional nature (of sense percepts) the six cognitions of sound, touch, colour, taste, and smell, of pleasure, and so forth, are produced on occasion of four conditions. These four conditions are known as (1.) the data, (2.) the suggestion, (3.) the medium, and (4.) the dominant (organ). Of these, the form of blue or the like arises from the condition of blue data in the understanding in which there is a manifestation of blue or the like, which manifestation is styled a cognition. The resuscitation of forms or cognitions arises from suggestion as a condition. The restriction to the apprehension of this or that object arises from the medium, light, for instance, as a condition, and from the dominant, the eye, for example, as another condition. The eye, as determinant of one particular cognition (form) where taste, &c., might have been equally cognised, is able to become dominant; for in everyday life he who determines is regarded as dominant. We must thus recognise four causes of pleasure and the rest which const.i.tute the understanding and its modifications.

So also the universe, which consists of mind and its modifications, is of five kinds, ent.i.tled (1.) the sensational, (2.) the perceptional, (3.) the affectional, (4.) the verbal, and (5.) the impressional. Of these, the sensible world (_rupa-skandha_) is the sense organs and their objects, according to the etymology, viz., that objects are discriminated (_rupyante_) by these. The perceptional world is the stream of subject-recognitions and of presentments of activity. The affectional world is the stream of feelings of pleasure and pain generated by the two aforesaid worlds. The verbal (or symbolical) world is the stream of cognitions conversant about words--the words "cow," and so forth. The impressional world is the miseries, as desire, aversion, &c., caused by the affectional world, the lesser miseries, as conceit, pride, &c., and merit and demerit.