NOTES
193
of one universe; so it is not acceptable .to him to admit the reality of two. (For the Advaitin's answer to this see Advaitasiddhi, p. 95.) The vyii.paka (pervader) is the prior existence of a substrate and archetype, and being illusory is the pervaded. The pervader is not present in the subject of the inference i.e., the universe. So the law of parsimony requires us to accept the reality of this universe than the addmission of the reality of two universes. XXXI (271-294). The Dvaitin proves the non-illusory nature of the universe with the help of two probans i.e., (1) because it has no substrate, (2) because it has no archetype. These two are necessary for delusion, and without them we cannot account for delusion. The 'Advaitin points out that the probans is inconstant in respect of dream-objects. The objects seen in dream are illusory and they have no substrate. The probandum " illusoriness" is there, but the probans " having a substrate" is not there. The Advaitin elaborately sets forth his arguments to prove the illusory nature of dream objects. The dream objects cannot be beginningless and eternal. If they be so, we must all be able to cognise them before and after the dream cognition. We are not able to do so. If they are said to be born and destroyed then and there, it is a very unsound position. There is no material and efficient cause for the production of dream objects. It cannot be inside the body, because huge objects like elephants, mountains, etc., cannot get into the body. If the objects are said to be outside, then it must be visible to all others that are next to the dreamer. It is not so. Besides there is no sense-organ which can cognise the dream objects. It cannot be the outer sense-organs; for all of them rest in sleep. It cannot be mind, because mind cannot cognise outside objects independently. It needs the help of outer sense-organs. There is no substrate for dream obje4its. The Atman cannot be the substrate of the dream objects. • For a thing to be the substrate of the object it must not be cognised as different from the illysory object. The Atman is cdgnised as different from the ,illusory object. When we see an
