178
VADAVALi
than itself. By the indeterminate usage is meant a thing which is neither real nor unreal, i.e., cognising a thing as neither real nor unreal. The Dvaitin points out that the objects like pot also can be treated likewise. The Advaitin does not accept that there is indeterminate usage in respect of objects like pot etc. To this the Dvaitin replies that similarly let there be no indeterminate. usage in respect of the Atman, too. The Advaitin instances the experience of the self in deep sleep as the evidence for indeterminate usage. The Dvaitin does not admit that in deep sleep the self is indeterminate. The individual after a good sleep recollects that he had sound and enjoyable sleep. The attributes "sound" and "ettjoyable " must have characterised it. So in deep sleep the self is not indeterminate as the Advaitin holds. XVII (147-151). There is another definition of self-luminosity by Citsukha i.e., "it is the capacity to be the object of empirical usage while not being an object of cognition." This definition is said to be contradictory, because that which is not cognised can never become an object of cognition and there will be no usage about it. The definition is impossible. Granting that the definition is somehow not contradictory, still there is the need for clearing the definition of self-luminosity which is a complex one. Its opposite is cognisability. The non-existence of a complex character can result in one of the three ways, (1) by the non-existence of the qualification i.e., the attribute (2) by the non-existence of the substrate or (3) by the non-existence of both. If it' results through the non-existence of the attribute, " not being an object of cognition " may itself be the probans. Defects of the position have already been noted. If it be the non-existence of the substrate, then there is the defect of the non-establishment of the probans in respect of the subject, The probans is not present in the subject ; '·its nonexistence alone is present. Objects like pot etc., are t>bjects of empirical usage of immediaqy. The probans is" not being objects of empirical usage of immediac:v. ". Hence the defect of partial
