NOTES
197
acceptable to the Dvaitin. The prior• question is repeated i.e., what is it that it means; is the relationship with cloth deduced, or the cloth itself ? The first alternative does not hold good because there is no pervasion as a matter of fact. The pervasion should be of the form " wherever there is not the absolute non-existence of X there is relationship to X". But the Dvaitin does not affirm the latter (say relationship to cowness), even when he denies absolute non-existence (say cowness in the horse). This samsargabhava has to be admitted even by the opponent in cases like the non-existence of the non-existence of cloth ; else there would be self-dependence in the case of the non-existence of the cloth ; for in this case, the alleged pervasion would be of the form " where cloth is not, there exists relationship to non-existence of cloth " ; and that is absurd. Hence the alleged pervasion fails. In the second case there is the defect of the establishment of the established, since even another cloth may be present in those threads through sarhyoga. The probandum worded a little differently fares no better. The probandum is worded as follows ; " this cloth is not born out of these threads ". If it is so worded there is the defect of non-establishment of the probans i.e., "being a whole." That which is not an effect cannot be a whole. If that probans is said to be ultimately not real such a position is already refuted. As for the defect of sublation by perception, the Advaitin points out that inference can sublate and invalidate the truth established by perception. For example the perception of the blue colour of the sky is sublated by the inference which establishes the colourless nature of the sky with the help of the probans " grossness ". Likewise the reality of the cloth cognised through perception is sublated by inference with "being a whole " as the probans. The' D"aitin refutes this position from two points of view. The sub!.ation of the perceptive cognition of the blueness of the sky is not by inference; it is due, to scripture. So inference <does not smblate it. Besides, ihe very probans which is urged to
