________________
794
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XIX.
TEXT (1615). The perceptibility (OF POTENCY) BEING THUS ESTABLISHED, ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID (BY THE OTHER PARTY) REGARDING ITS NOT BEING COGNISABLE BY INFERENCE, DOES NOT AFFECT us. BECAUSE IN THIS CASE WE DO NOT REGARD THE COGNITION TO BE OF THE NATURE OF Inference.-(1615)
COMMENTARY. Then again, it has been declared (by Kumärila, see above under Text 1589) that "Potencies of all Things become cognised through Presumption" and so forth; where it has been shown that Potencios cannot be inferred. That does not affect our position at all.-"Why?"-Because in this case-of Potency being perceptible, --we do not regard the cognition to be of the nature of Inference; for the simple reason that Inference consists of the cognition of only such things as are not cognisable by Perception.
This shows that the arguments adduced are superfluous.(1615)
It has been argued above under Text 1591, that whatever Reasons are adduced in regard to the Potency of the Ear, etc. would all be such as have their substratum unknown".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (1616). AS REGARDS SUCH THINGS AS THE AUDITORY ORGAN AND THE LIKE WHICH ARE NOT AMENABLE TO PERCEPTION,THEIR VERY EXISTENCE, IN THE SHAPE OF POTENCY, IS COGNISED
BY INFERENCE.-(1616)
COMMENTARY. Objection : "It has been said previously that their existence is proved ; why then is it said now that their existence is indicated 1 " Reply
TEXT (1617). WHAT WAS ASSERTED ON THE PREVIOUS OCCASION WAS ONLY THE FACT OF THE APPREHENSION OF SOUND BEING DEPENDENT ON OTHER CAUSES, ON THE GROUND THAT EVEN WHEN ITS
CAUSE WAS THERE, IT DID NOT COME ABOUT, BECAUSE SOMETHING ELSE WAS ABSENT ;
AS IN THE CASE OF THE SPROUT
AND SUCH THINGS.-(1617)
COMMENTARY Existence is not proved directly; what is proved is the fact of Auditory and other Perceptions, as the Subject, being dependent upon other causes --