We return to the proof of the, previously mooted, permanence of things.
The 'anusmriti' of the Sûtra means cognition of what was previously
perceived, i.e. recognition. It is a fact that all things which were
perceived in the past may be recognised, such recognition expressing
itself in the form 'this is just that (I knew before).' Nor must you say
that this is a mere erroneous assumption of oneness due to the fact of
the thing now perceived being similar to the thing perceived before, as
in the case of the flame (where a succession of flames continually
produced anew is mistaken for one continuous flame); for you do not
admit that there is one permanent knowing subject that could have that
erroneous idea. What one person has perceived, another cannot judge to
be the same as, or similar to, what he is perceiving himself. If
therefore you hold that there is an erroneous idea of oneness due to the
perception of similarity residing in different things perceived at
different times, you necessarily must acknowledge oneness on the part of
the cognising subject. In the case of the flame there is a valid means
of knowledge to prove that there really is a succession of similar
flames, but in the case of the jar, we are not aware of such a means,
and we therefore have no right to assume that recognition is due to the
similarity of many successive jars.---Perhaps you will here argue as
follows. The momentariness of jars and the like is proved by Perception
as well as Inference. Perception in the first place presents as its
object the present thing which is different from non-present things, in
the same way as it presents the blue thing as different from the yellow;
it is in this way that we know the difference of the present thing from
the past and the future. Inference again proceeds as follows--jars and
the like are momentary because they produce effects and have existence
(sattva); what is non-momentary, such as the horn of a hare, does not
produce effects and does not possess existence. We therefore conclude
from the existence of the last momentary jar that the preceding jar-
existences also are perishable, just because they are momentary
existences like the existence of the last jar.--But both this perception
and this inference have already been disproved by what was said above
about the impossibility of momentary existences standing to one another
in the relation of cause and effect. Moreover, that difference of the
present object from the non-present object which is intimated by
Perception does not prove the present object to be a different _thing_
(from the past object of Perception), but merely its being connected with
the present time. This does not prove it to be a different thing, for
the same thing can be connected with different times. The two reasons
again which were said to prove the momentariness of jars are invalid
because they may be made to prove just the contrary of what they are
alleged to prove. For we may argue as follows--From existence and from
their having effects it follows that jars, and so on, are permanent; for
whatever is non-permanent, is non-existent, and does not produce effects,
as e.g. the horn of a hare. The capacity of producing effects can in
fact be used only to prove non-momentariness on the part of jars, and so
on; for as things perishing within a moment are not capable of acting,
they are not capable of producing effects. Further, as it is seen in the
case of the last momentary existence that its destruction is due to a
visible cause (viz. the blow of a hammer or the like), the proper
conclusion is that also the other momentary jars (preceding the last
one) require visible causes for their destruction; and (as no such causes
are seen, it follows that) the jar is permanent and continuous up to the
time when a destructive cause, such as the blow of a hammer, supervenes.
Nor can it be said that hammers and the like are not the causes of
destruction, but only the causes of the origination of a new series of
momentary existences dissimilar to the former ones--in the case of the
jar, e.g. of a series of momentary fragments of a jar; for we have
proved before that the destruction of jars, and so on, means nothing but
their passing over into a different condition, e.g. that of fragments.
And even if destruction were held to be something different from the
origination of fragments, it would yet be reasonable to infer, on the
ground of immediate succession in time, that the cause of the
destruction is the blow of the hammer.
Hence it is impossible to deny in any way the permanency of things as
proved by the fact of recognition. He who maintains that recognition
which has for its object the oneness of a thing connected with
successive points of time has for its objects different things, might as
well say that several cognitions of, let us say, blue colour have for
their object something different from blue colour. Moreover, for him who
maintains the momentariness of the cognising subject and of the objects
of cognition, it would be difficult indeed to admit the fact of
Inference which presupposes the ascertainment and remembrance of general
propositions. He would in fact not be able to set forth the reason
required to prove his assertion that things are momentary; for the
speaker perishes in the very moment when he states the proposition to be
proved, and another person is unable to complete what has been begun by
another and about which he himself does not know anything.