________________
OTHER FORMS AND MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE
795
on the ground that when the other cause, of its Auditory Perception,-in the shape of attention of the mind is not there the Perception does not come about. This argument is formulated as follows:-When even on the presence of something, another thing appears only occasionally (not always), then this latter must be dependent upon other causes ; e.g. even when the soil is there, the Sprout appears only occasionally ;-even when the attention of the Mind is there, the Auditory Perception comes about only occasionally ; this thus is a Reason based upon the nature of things. When this fact of being dependent upon other causes has been established, then it is deduced that that other cause must be the well-known Auditory Organ; that is why it is said that existence is cognised, in this way and not directly.--Hence there is nothing wrong in this.-(1617)
It has been argued (under Text 1588) that "From the inferred mobility of the Sun, the Potency is cognised by Presumption ".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXTS (1618-1619)
WHEN THE SUN REACHES ANOTHER PLACE, WHAT HAPPENS ALWAYS IS THAT
IT IS BORN (AGAIN) IN A PLACE DIFFERENT FROM ITS ORIGINAL PLACE; THIS IS AS IT IS FOUND IN THE CASE OF THE FIREFLAME; A THING THAT REMAINS PERMANENT IS OF A TOTALLY DIFFERENT KIND; OTHERWISE SUCH REACHING OF ANOTHER PLACE WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.-AS REGARDS POTENCY, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN THAT IT IS NOTHING APART FROM THE THING.
-(1618-1619)
COMMENTARY.
This shows that Presumption is included under Inference.
For instance, whenever anything is found to reach another place, it is a case of the thing being born in a place other than its original one ;-as is found to be the case when the fire-flame moves from one place to the other ; -the Sun is found to be reaching another place; hence this is an Inferential Reason based upon the nature of things.
This Reason cannot be regarded as "Inconclusive '; because a thing that remains permanent-i.e. an object that always remains in one and the same form-cannot reach another place; as it can never renounce its original position ; if it does renounce it, it must be in a new form born again. This is the Reasoning sublating any conclusions to the contrary.
It might be argued that-"This Presumption has been cited as proving the existence of the Potency, not the birth of the thing; how then is it that the Presumption is said to be included under this Inference ? "
The answer to this is—' As regards Potency, etc. etc. (1618-1619)