The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c7.s3.t7.25

c7.s3.t7.25

“But these two objections do not hold good. As only the “presentation is apprehended, and there is no need of the “apprehension of the subject (*sākshin*) of the presentation, “therefore we are not face to face with a *regressus in infinitum*: “for subject and perception are in their nature contrary to each other, and are related as the apperceiver, and the apperceived; the subject, however, is, in itself, certain, and cannot be denied [compare the discussion of this above p. 127]. And if it be further maintained that the presentation, like the lamp, needs no other to illumine it, but makes itself known by itself, then this means as much as a presentation which cannot be apprehended by any instrument of knowledge, and which has no apprehender, which would no more make itself known than would a thousand lamps if they were set together in the middle of a block of stone.—But if presentation is in its own nature sensation, have we not [p. 575] in this granted the thesis of our opponents?—No; but as the lamp, to illumine, requires yet another, to apprehend, namely, the eye, in just the same way the presentation requires the power of making itself seen, and only, as with the lamp, when another which apprehends it is present does its light become visible.—But, the opponent might say, if you explain the apprehending subject as self proved, that is just what I maintain about the presentation making itself known by itself, only expressed in other words.—But that is not so, because the presentation has as its characteristics, origin, perishability, and non-unity [accidentally, not as the subject is a necessity; this further concerns its contents only, not the form which is just what constitutes the nature of the subject]. Thus we have proved that, like a lamp, the presentation also must be apprehended by something lying beyond it.