Against the Sa@mkhya distinction of buddhi (cognition) and cit (pure intelligence) it is said that there is no difference between the buddhi and cit.  We do not find in our consciousness two elements of a phenomenal and a non-phenomenal consciousness, but only one, by whichever name it may be called.  The Sa@mkhya epistemology that the anta@hkara@na assumes diverse forms in cognitive acts is also denied, and these are explained on the supposition of contacts of manas with the senses, atman and external objects.  The Buddhist objection against the Sa@mkhya explanation that the anta@hkara@nas catch reflection from the external world just as a crystal does from the coloured objects that may lie near it, that there were really momentary productions of crystals and no permanent crystal catching different reflections at different times is refuted by Nyaya; for it says that it cannot be said that all creations are momentary, but it can only be agreed to in those cases where momentariness was actually experienced.  In the case of the transformation of milk into curd there is no coming in of new qualities and disappearance of old ones, but

_______________________________________________________

____________

[Footnote 1:  It is well to remember that Sa@mkhya did not believe that the senses were constituted of the gross elements.  But the Sa@mkhya-Yoga view represented in Atreya-sa@mhita (Caraka) regarded the senses as bhautika or constituted of the gross elements.]

300

the old milk is destroyed and the curd originates anew.  The contact of manas with soul (atman) takes place within the body and not in that part of atman which is outside the body; knowledge belongs to the self and not to the senses or the object for even when they are destroyed knowledge remains.  New cognitions destroy the old ones.  No two recollections can be simultaneous.  Desire and antipathy also belong to the soul.  None of these can belong either to the body or to the mind (manas).  Manas cannot be conscious for it is dependent upon self.  Again if it was conscious then the actions done by it would have to be borne by the self and one cannot reap the fruits of the actions of another.  The causes of recollection on the part of self are given as follows:  (1) attention, (2) context, (3) repetition, (4) sign, (5) association, (6) likeness, (7) association of the possessor and the possessed or master and servant, or things which are generally seen to follow each other, (8) separation (as of husband and wife), (9) simpler employment, (10) opposition, (11) excess, (12) that from which anything can be got, (13) cover and covered, (14) pleasure and pain causing memory of that which caused them, (15) fear, (16) entreaty, (17) action such as that of the chariot reminding the charioteer, (18) affection, (19) merit and demerit [Footnote ref 1].  It is said that knowledge does not belong to body, and then the question of the production of the body as due to ad@r@s@ta is described.  Salvation (apavarga) is effected by the manas being permanently separated from the soul (atman) through the destruction of karma.