NOTES
195
the relation of substrate and super-imposition is not possible. The super-imposition of the world on the Atman is as unimaginable as the super-imposition lof the mustard seeds on a mountain. The Advaitin criticises the second probans put forward by the Dvaitin to refute the illusory nature of the universe. The brobans is not having an archetype". The archetype of each illusory universe is its prior illusory universe. Thus the probans is shown to be nonexistent there. The Dvaitin points out that the prior illusory universes are not real. The archetype must be real. Hence the probans is established. XXXII (295-297). The Advaitin states a new inference to establish the illusory nature of the universe. This inference is from Citsukha's Tattvapradrpika, p. 40. The subject of this inference is " this cloth " and the probandum is " being the counter-correlate of the non-existence present in these threads". The probans is "being a whole." The cloth which is made out of these threads cannot be present elsewhere. If its existence is denied in the threads, it proves to be nowhere though it is seen. Its being seen and not being present in the threads leads us to the conclusion that it is illusory. Once cloth is proved to be so, in the same manner the whole world is proved to be illusory. The Dvaitin criticises the inference and points out the following defects: (1) sublation by perception, (2) establishment of the established, (3) establishment of other than the intended and (4) partial non-establishment of the probandum. The absolute non-existence present in the threads cannot have any counter• correlate ; perception points out the presence of the cloth in the thread. Hence the sublation. The probandum i.e., absolute non-existence of the cloth in the threads, is accepted by the Dvaitin. The threads and the cloth are in the relation of cause and effect. Cause anu effect are non·ttifferent. The cloth and the threads are in a relation of the support and the supported. The threads are the 5upporters and the cfoth is the supported. Both caanot be iden~ical. Hence the defect.
