3.1 Summary
The sense objects are well known to everyone. The non-recognition of sense-objects is the cause for positing a different entity apart from the sense-objects. This different entity is not verbally expressible, due to the ignorance of the cause.
Knowledge arises because of effects but is incomplete.
It is indeed a different cause; hence; it is not verbally expressible. It is indeed a different entity, because, due to its different nature, it is not verbally expressible.
It is opposed to what inheres in a conjunction and to what inheres in a common substratum.
It is the effect of another effect, that which has become opposed to what was. It has come into being from that which previously existed. The one that has become from an existing thing.
Because verbal designation is preceded by common recognition. What is not commonly known is not verbally expressible. That which has existed, yet being uncertain, is not verbally expressible.
E.g. Because it has horns, therefore it is a horse. “Because it has horns, therefore it is a cow” — this is an example of a fallacious (non-exclusive) reason.
That which arises from the contact of ātman, sense, and object is something different (from all three). Drive to act and withdrawal, when observed within the inner-ātman are indications of another.
