It cannot be contended that the feeling "I am a man " points to a valid experience of the body being the Ego,; for man sometimes dreams of himself being a tiger. Here the consciousness of Ego, the feeling of "I, "remains the same, unaffected by the different bodies with which the Ego has been associated in the two states of jagrat and svapna.

Now, as to the contention that anumana or inference cannot constitute an in itself. Our every day experience furnishes so many instances of our conduct being consciously based on no better authority than anumana. What basis, for instance, other than anumana or inference from past experience, is there for our belief that the food we are going to eat next moment will appease our hunger? But for this faith in anumana as the right source of knowledge, how can any one get on in life?

As to the remaining negative assertions of a sweeping character in the Charvaka's system, it is unnecessary to enter into a detailed discussion.

Why the sense-organs cannot be Atman.

14. Not even the sense-organs are Atman, since they are mere instruments like a lamp.

15. Like a musical instrument such as vina, the ear is a means of perceiving sound. The eye, like the three lights (sun, moon and fire), is a means of perceiving form and colour.

16. The nose is a means of perceiving smell, like a flower-vase, etc., and the tongue is a means of perceiving taste, like curd, honey, or clarified butter.

17. "The sense-organs I have not; I am dumb, I am deaf." Thus say the

people who are wanting in the sense-organs. Are they selfless?

Why Prana is not Atman.

18-19. Not even Prana is Atman; for there is no consciousness in times of sushupti. When man goes to sushupti to gain a respite from the worry caused by jagrat and svapna life, Prana acts for the mere preservation of the body, wherewith to reap the fruits of karma yet unspent.

20-21. If Prana's unconsciousness then (in sushupti) be due to the inactivity of the sense-organs, how, then, while Prana acts, can the senses be inactive? When

the king is still engaged in battle, the army cannot, indeed, cease to fight. Prana, therefore, cannot be the Lord of the sense-organs.

If Prana be the Atman seeking rest in sushupti, then it should be inactive. On the other hand, during sleep Prana is as active as before; it breathes and discharges other functions. If Prana be really the self-conscious Atman whose instruments of action and knowledge are the sense-organs, then it would be impossible for the latter to be inactive so long as the former remains active; and sushupti would not then be a period of inactivity.

22. Atman, the director of manas, ceasing to work, then all sense-organs cease to work. Their lord is therefore Atman.

Thus, Atman, the ruler of manas and other sense-organs, is distinct from Prana.

Why Buddhi is not Atman.