successive annihilation of these in turn, there is the annihilation of the one next before it, there is [on the annihilation of the last of them] final beatitude." "But is not your definition of the _summum bonum_, liberation, _i.e._, 'the absolute abolition of pain,' after all as much beyond our reach as treacle on the elbow is to the tongue;[217] why then is this continually put forth as if it were established beyond all dispute?" We reply that as all those who maintain liberation in any form do include therein the absolute abolition of pain, our definition, as being thus a tenet accepted in all the schools, may well be called the royal highway[218] of philosophy. No one, in fact, maintains that pain is possible without the individual's activity. Thus even the Mádhyamika's opinion that "liberation consists in the abolition of soul," does not controvert our point, so far at any rate as that it is the abolition of pain. But if you proceed to argue that the soul, as being the cause of pain, is to be abolished just like the body, &c., we reply that this does not hold, since it fails under either alternative. For do you mean by "the soul," (_a._) the continued succession of cognitions, or (_b._) something different therefrom? (_a._) If the former, we make no objection, [since we Naiyáyikas allow that cognition is evanescent,[219] and we do desire to abolish cognition as a cause of _pravṛitti_ or action[220]], for who would oppose a view which makes for his own side? (_b._) But if the latter, then, since it must be eternal,[221] its abolition is impossible; and, again, a second objection would be that no one would try to gain your supposed "_summum bonum_;" for surely no sensible person would strive to annihilate the soul, which is always the dearest of all, on the principle that "everything else is dear for the soul's pleasure;" and, again, everybody uses such a phrase as "liberated," [and this very term refutes the idea of annihilation or abolition]. "But why not say with those Bauddhas who hold the doctrine of pure intelligence [_i.e._, the Yogácháras and the Sautrántikas[222]], that 'the _summum bonum_' is the rising of pure intelligence consequent on the cessation of the conscious subject?" To this view we object that there is an absence of means; and also it cannot be established that the locus [or subject] of the two states is the same. For the former, if it is replied that the well-known fourfold set of Bauddha contemplations[223] are to be accepted as the cause, we answer that, as [according to the Bauddha tenet of the momentary existence of all things] there cannot be one abiding subject of these contemplations, they will necessarily exercise a languid power like studies pursued at irregular intervals, and be thus ineffectual to produce any distinct recognition of the real nature of things.