________________
OTHER FORMS AND MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE.
757
If some people however are unable to perceive any difference in the words that appear as indicatives (of the meaning).- the fault lies with these people themselves, not with the Indicative (word). Because the Indication does not indicate the meaning by its mere presence, it does so only when it is duly ascertained. Hence the fault lies with the person addressed.
If it were not so, then, if in a case where the presence of Smoke has been merely suspected in what was really only vapour, and hence later on it is found that the Fire indicated by it is not there, and it has failed to indicate the true Fire- it may lead one to the conclusion that even in cases where the Smoke has been duly cognised with certainty, it would not be indicative of the True Fire.
Further, when the entire fabric of verbal usage is regarded as illusory, being dependent solely upon mere semblances, like the idea of Two Moons' that the man of defective vision has,-how could the charge of being invalid be brought, on the basis of falsity only, against the notion of the particular * Intention of the Speaker'? Specially when real validity is not attributed to the idea of that particular Intention'. This has been thus declared
When Verbal Cognition was declared to be Inferential, it was with a view to its indicativeness being dependent upon Convention, and not with a view to the real truth'.-(1518-1519)
The following Text shows that words can be the Means of Cognising the Spoaker's Intention' in general also :
TEXT (1520).
IN THE CASE OF THOSE WORDS ALSO, THERE IS NO INCONGRUITY IN THE INFERENCE OF THE SIMPLE DESIRE TO SPEAK '; BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE FACT OF ITS BEING PRODUCED BY THE SPEAKER'S BREATH AND SO FORTX.
-1520
COMMENTARY.
In the case of all words, uttered by deluded as well as undeluded persons, there is no incongruity in the Inference of a general Intention to Speak', because it is always there,- i.e. there is no failure in the general premiss.
It might be argued that-“The assertion that through the mere presence of such a Person,-as through that of the Chintämani gem,instructions issue forth at will, even out of the walls', would appear to indicate that (as there is no speaker, there can be no desire to speak'), there may be falsity (in such assertions)."
But that is not so; because in this case also the initial cause lies in the desire to speak'; as even here the word issues forth only under the influence of the faculty produced by previous meditations. For instance, when a person has thoroughly got up a certain Text, it so happens that even when