or "darkness," then that meditation is called "egoistical" (_sásmita_), because here personal existence[399] only remains, since the intellectual faculty becomes now predominant, and the quality of "goodness" has become quite subordinate [as a mere stepping-stone to higher things]. But the "meditation, where distinct recognition is lost," consists in the suppression of all "modifications" whatever. "But" [it may be asked] "was not 'concentration' defined as the suppression of all the modifications? How, then, can the 'meditation where there is distinct recognition' be included in it at all, since we still find active in it that modification of the mind, with the quality of goodness predominant, which views the soul and the quality of goodness as distinct from each other?" This, however, is untenable, because we maintain that concentration is the suppression of the "modifications" of the thinking power, as especially stopping the operation of the "afflictions," the "actions," the "fructifications," and the "stock of deserts."[400] The "afflictions" (_kleśa_) are well known as five, viz., ignorance, egoism, desire, aversion, and tenacity of mundane existence. But here a question is at once raised, In what sense is the word _avidyá_, "ignorance," used here? Is it to be considered as an _avyayíbháva_ compound, where the former portion is predominant, as in the word "above-board"?[401] or is it a _tatpurusha_ [or _karmadháraya_] compound, where the latter portion is predominant, as in the word "town-clerk"? or is it a _bahuvríhi_ compound, where both portions are dependent on something external to the compound, as "blue-eyed"? It cannot be the first; for if the former portion of the compound were predominant, then we should have the negation the emphatic part in _avidyá_ (_i.e._, it would be an instance of what is called the express negation, or _prasajya-pratishedha_);[402] and consequently, as _avidyá_ would be thus emphatically a negation, it would be unable to produce positive results, as the "afflictions," &c., and the very form of the word should not be feminine, but neuter. It cannot be the second; for any knowledge, whatever thing's absence it may be characterised by (_a_ + _vidyá_), opposes the "afflictions," &c., and cannot therefore be their source. Nor can it be the third; for then,--in accordance with the words of the author of the Vṛitti,[403] "there is a _bahuvríhi_ compound which is formed with some word meaning 'existence' used after 'not,' with the optional elision of this subsequent word"[404]--we must explain this supposed _bahuvríhi_ compound _avidyá_ as follows: "That _buddhi_ is to be characterised as _avidyá_ (_sc._ an adjective), of which there is not a _vidyá_ existing." But this explanation is untenable; for such an _avidyá_ could not become the source of the "afflictions;"[405] and yet, on the other hand, it ought to be their source,[406] even though it were