thus intrinsically associated with the self does not get dis- sociated from it even in deep sleep ; because at the time of waking, the self shines forth in one and the same continuous form of the thing ' I ', even when we feel that, while asleep, we knew nothing at all, and that we did not know even ourselves (pp. 94-96.). The position that the self is a mere witness is explained not to mean that it is a witness only of ignorance; for, to be a witness is certainly the same as to be a direct knower, and even in sleep and other such states the self is luminous and shines forth as the ego (pp. 96-97.). In the final state of beatific release also the self continues to persist as the thing T; scripture also declares that it does so persist, and God Himself is revealed to us as a dis- tinct Person (pp. 97-100.). The material principle known as ahaftkara is indeed included among the things that go to make up our bodies ; and it is called by that name be- cause it forms the cause of the imposition of the idea of the ego upon the body. This false idea of the ego is sub- ject to stultification, while the ego-hood of the self is real and incapable of being stultified. Therefore the thing ' I ', which is the knower, is alone the self (pp. 100-101.).
The next point taken up for consideration is the position of the Prtrvapakshin that, when there is conflict between scripture and perception, the former is of stronger authority as a criterion of truth, for the reason that the latter is grounded upon error. It is here shown that it is not possible to make out definitely what that misguiding cause is which makes perception false and erroneous; it is shown that whatever makes perception erroneous must necessarily tend to make the scripture also erroneous, and that the scripture which is thus based upon error cannot certainly stultify per- ception. It cannot be proved that, unlike perception, the scripture is incapable of being misled by an}* cruise of error C
