________________
CHAPTER XIX.
Section (H).
Summing up.
COMMENTARY
Having thus rejected all other Means or Forms of Cognition, in detail, the author briefly proceeds to discard them (and thus sums up the question) -
TEXT (1701).
OR, ALL THIS EFTORT IS OUT OF PLACE ; SINCE THINGS EXIST IN TWO FORMS ONLY-VIZ, : PERCEPTIBLE AND
IMPERCEPTIBLE.-(1701)
COMMENTARY.
Things are of only two kinds-Perceptible and Imperceptible.--(1701)
Objection :-"There is also another kind-which is both Perceptible and Imperceptible, and which is neither Perceptible nor Imperceptible.” Answer -
TEXTS (1702-1708).
ANY OTHER KIND IS NOT POSSIBLE, IN THE SHAPE OF Both Perceptible—and
Imperceptible, or neither Perceptible-nor-Imperceptible. BECAUSE IN ANY SINGLE THING, BOTH action AND inaction WOULD BE SELFCONTRADICTORY. THAT THING IS CALLED 'PERCEPTIBLE' WHICH PRODUCES ITS COGNITION DIREOTLY (IMMEDIATELY); THE CONTRARY OF THIS IS REGARDED BY THE WISE, AS "IMPERCEPTIBLE':-Now VERBAL COGNITION, ANALOGICAL COGNITION AND THE REST CANNOT ENVISAGE THE FORMER (PERCEPTIBLE) THING; AS IN THAT CASE THEY WOULD BECOME INCLUDED UNDER 'PERCEPTION, OR BE FUTILE, LIKE REMEMBRANCE.-EVEN IF THEY ENVISAGE Imperceptible THINGS, IN WHAT WAY COULD ANYTHING BE ENVISAGED BY ALL? IF DIRECTLY (IMMEDIATELY), THEN THE THING WOULD NOT BE IMPERCEPTIBLE', BEING EXACTLY LIKE THE PERCEPTIBLE THING. IF THE COGNITIONS ARE DEPENDENT UPON SOMETHING ELSE (I.E. indirect, mediate), WOULD THE COGNITION BE RELATED TO IT OR NOT RELATED? WOULD IT ENVISAGE distinction Or xor -IY IT AROSE OUT OF WHAT IS not related, THEN THERE COULD BE NO RESTRICTION ; AND IF IT
