NOTES
173
by vrtti-jnana and it is beginningless, w"hereas the psychosis lasts only for some time ; so it cannot be pervaded by it. Further the Dvaitin points out that the Advaitin's pervasion is vitiated in respect of impressions. The impressions are located in the manas. They produce recollection or recognition and after that they die away. Recognition destroys impression; so impressions are destroyed by the pramiiiJa i.e., recognition. Impressions are cognised by pramiil}.a. " Not being cognised by pramal}.a " is the probandum. This is not present in impressions; but there is the probans i.e., "being destroyed by pramiil}.a ". Hence the inconstancy in respect of impressions. Recognition according to Dvaita Vedanta is a pramal}.a that is subsumed under perception. The Advaitin cites another pramii!}a from usage in support of the positive nature of nescience. It takes the following form " I know not the sense stated by you ". Here the content of the cognition is positive nescience and it is not the non-existence of cognition. The content of the statement cannot be the non·existence of cognition. The cognition of non-existence is dependent on the cognition of the locus and the counter-correlate. The admission contradicts the sense of the usage in question i.e., " I know not the sense stated by you". If he denies the need for cognition of the locus and counter-correlate, the absence of that prevents him from maintaining that the content of the statement is non-existence of cognition. So the Advaitin concludes that it is necessary to maintain that the content of the statement is positive nescience. The siddhantin resolves the usage " I know not the sense stated by you" to mean two things. Does it mean that every particular stated is restated and said to be not known, or does it mean that the thing in general is not known? It cannot be the first, because- the moment we admit that this is a restatement of every particular, there would be impossibility for the usage. If the Advaitin further contends that tltere is such a usage, then the D;aitin interprets the statement? " I know not the sense stated by
