Váchaspati also says,[411] "The connection of words and their meanings depends on general consent for its certainty; and since we occasionally see that a _tatpurusha_ negation, where the latter portion is properly predominant, may overpower the direct meaning of this latter portion by its contradiction of it, we conclude that even here too [in _avidyá_] the real meaning is something contrary to _vidyá_" [_i.e._, the negative "non-knowledge" becomes ultimately the positive "ignorance"[412]]. It is with a view to this that it is said in the Yoga Aphorisms [ii. 5], "Ignorance is the notion that the non-eternal, the impure, pain, and the non-soul are (severally) eternal, pure, pleasure, and soul." _Viparyaya_, "misconception," is defined as "the imagining of a thing in what is not that thing,"[413] [_i.e._, in its opposite]; as, for instance, the imagining the "eternal" in a "non-eternal" thing, _i.e._, a jar, or the imagining the "pure" in the "impure" body,[414] when it has been declared by a proverbial couplet[415]-- "The wise recognise the body as impure, from its original place [the womb],--from its primal seed,--from its composition [of humours, &c.],--from perspiration,--from death [as even a Bráhman's body defiles],--and from the fact that it has to be made pure by rites." So,--in accordance with the principle enounced in the aphorism (ii. 15), "To the discriminating everything is simply pain, through the pain which arises in the ultimate issue of everything,[416] or through the anxiety to secure it [while it is enjoyed], or through the latent impressions which it leaves behind, and also from the mutual opposition of the influences of the three qualities" [in the form of pleasure, pain, and stupid indifference],--ignorance transfers the idea of "pleasure" to what is really "pain," as, _e.g._, garlands, sandal-wood, women, &c.; and similarly it conceives the "non-soul," _e.g._, the body, &c., as the "soul." As it has been said-- "But ignorance is when living beings transfer the notion of 'soul' to the 'non-soul,' as the body, &c.; "This causes bondage; but in the abolition thereof is liberation." Thus this ignorance consists of four kinds.[417] But [it may be objected] in these four special kinds of ignorance should there not be given some general definition applying to them all, as otherwise their special characteristics cannot be established? For thus it has been said by Bhaṭṭa Kumárila-- "'Without some general definition, a more special definition cannot be given by itself; therefore it must not be even mentioned here.'" This, however, must not be urged here, as it is sufficiently met by the general definition of misconception, already adduced above, as "the imagining of a thing in its opposite."