NOTES
185
fifth prakara VIeW IS to exclude these, according to whom mok~a is atma-svarupa; in such a case mok~a is sat or cit, not ja~a; if however it is of a fifth form, it must be ja9a. If mok~a is said to be characterised by temporal finitude, there is contradiction for the words of the Advaitin who maintains non-return. (For the Advaitin's refutation of the criticism, see Advaita siddhi, p. 15.) XXII (211-218). The term temporal finitude is interpreted as '• being the substrate of reciprocal non-existence." "Being the substrate of reciprocal non-existence" is just another name for difference. If temporal finitude is difference, the scriptural statements like "neti-neti" declare that Brahman is different from the world. Thus the probans is inconstant in respect of Brahman. The probandum, " illusoriness " is not present and the probans, "being a substrate of reciprocal non-existence" is there. Hence the defect. If the difference predicated by the scriptures be said to be phenomenal i.e., the difference resulting from nescience, the Dvaitin does not admit that. Then the probans would be " real difference ". The probans, " real difference " is not established in respect of the subject, becauese the subject is illusory. Besides, the same probans can establish the reality of the universe. The form of the inference will be as follows. " The world under dispute is not illusory, because it is the substrate of real reciprocal non-existence." For in the self which is different from the unreal there is real difference; nacre-silver, though illusory, does not possess real difference. The Dvaitin urges that perception sublates the truth of the Advaitin's inference. Perception warrants that the object of cognition is real. Then there is an examination of the term real. It is resolved to mean six different things. The acceptance of any of the first five alternatives does not lead us on to the contradiction•of the Advaitin's inference by perception. The sixth alternative i.e., being real =unsublatability, is not accepted by the Advaitin. Perception has not .the necessary capacity to apprehend what is in the futute. Perception can comprehend
