170
VADAV ALi
are used. Non-cognisedness is not present in the locus i.e., valid cognition. Besides this, the aim of the Advaitin is to establish the positive nescience having for its substrate the atman and that is secured by the use of the words " present in its own locus ". The Dvaitin criticises the inference in detail. He points out that the said probandum is not definitely in the subjects. Valid cognition is the modification of the internal organ and as such it has for its material cause Manas. Manas is inert. According to the Advaitins of the VivaraQa school, an inert object cannot be the Gontent or locus. The inconstancy of the probans is also urged. Besides, the attribute " being other than its own anterior nonexistence" is urged to be purposeless. A positive entity does not destroy its own anterior non-existence. The coming into being of an entity alone destroys its anterior non-existence. Being other than its own anterior non-existence is said to be superfluous. The inference is further criticised by questioning the nature of the entity said to precede the valid cognition. If it is real there is the defect of the establishment of the established, because, the Dvaitin admits that nescience is real. If it is said to be indeterminable, such indeterminability is not found in the example i.e., " darkness preceding the light " ; darkness is not in the example ; there is thus the defect of the absence of the probandum. If the Advaitin defines it as that which is not specified to be indeterminable or real, such a general description is not acceptable. No such common attribute is said to exist as between a validly cognised entity and an invalidly cognised entity .. Indeterminability is not validly cognised because there is no pram3J].a securing its cognition. A common attribute is possible only as between two validly cognised objects. There cannot be any common attribute between the horns of a hare and the horns of a cow, because one of them is unreal and non-existent. •' Further the definition of the probandum is apitlicable to demerit. Demerit is admi!l:ed to be destroyed by valid cognition. The commentator cites the exaRaple of the cancellation of our s1ns
