________________
OTHER FORMS AND MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE.
785
TEXT (1590).
“THE RELATION OF THESE POTENCIES HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY COGNISED-NOR IS IT COGNISED NOW; AND IT IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH COGNITIONS THAT THERE COULD BE THE TWO
PREMISSES."-(1590)
COMMENTARY.
Prior to the time of Inference, the relation of the Potencies to the effects has not been cognised, in the way in which the relation of Fire and Smoke is previously recognised in the kitchen ; because the Potencies are not per. ceptible. This shows that there can be no Major Premiss (asserting the Invariable Concomitance).
Nor is it cognised now at the time of Inference ; for the same reason that they are not perceptible. This shows that there can be no Minor Premiss.
The effect cannot be regarded as a property of the Potencies residing in the Cause, as there can be no ground for this idea.-(1590)
TEXT (1591).
"IN THE CASE OF PROVING THE POTENCY OF THE EAR, ETC., WHATEVER PROBANS MIGHT BE PUT FORWARD, WOULD ALL BE FOUND TO BE OF UNKNOWN SUBSTRATUM; AS THE SUBSTRATUM WOULD CONSIST OF THE POTENCIES THEMSELVES, AND THESE ARE STILL
UNKNOWN."-(1591)
COMMENTARY.
Then again, in a case where the Potencies of the Ear, etc. are made the Subject of the Inference, whatever Probans (Reason) might be put forward, for the proving of the said Potencies, would all be of unknown substratum ; because the Potencies would be their substratum, and these are not known (as yet).
From all this it follows that all Potencies are cognisable through Presumption, not through Inference.-(1591)
TEXT (1592). “(4) HE IS CORPULENT AND DOES NOT EAT DURING THE DAY-ON HEARING SUCH WORDS, ONE CONCLUDES THAT THE MAN EATS AT NIGHT; AND THIS IS Presumption based upon what is
heard.”—[Shlo.Vā.-PRESUMPTION, 51)-(1592)
COMMENTARY.
(4) Presumption based upon Verbal Cognition is there when, on hearing the words that 'Devadatta is corpulent without medication, and does not