________________
THE DOCTRINE OF THE
THING BY ITSELF'.
113
certain thing consists only in the apprehension of something else, and as such, is of the nature of Perception
It has been sought (under Text 112, above) to prove that pleasure and such internal things can have no Cause because they appear only occasionally " -This reasoning however is contradictory', inasmuch as it proves only the contrary of what is desired to prove ; because what has no cause and what is not dependent upon anything else cannot be occasional', 124penring only at certain tiines and places. What is meant is that the Corroborative Instance cited is devoid of the character desired to be provedl.-(118)
Thus it has been shown that the conclusion (of the other party) is contrary to facts of Perception and that their Reason is 'unproven, Inadmissible: now the Author takes for granted (for the sake of argument) the admissibility of the Renson, and then proceeds to show its Inconchesiveness-in the following Text:
TEXT (119).
IT MAY BE THAT THERE ARE NO PROOFS TOR TRE EXISTENCE OF THE 'CAUSE OF THINGS; BUT THE MERE absence of proof (MEANS OF COG. NISING) CANNOT PROVE THE NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY
THING.–(119)
COMMENTARY. If inere. Non-apprehension' is put forward as the reason for the nouexistence of the Cause, thou it is Inconclusive; because were absence of prooli.e. mere absence of a valid means of knowing, -cannot serve as a reason for establishing the non-existence of the thing concerned.-(119)
Question :-" Why cannot it be a proof? " The answer is provided in the following Text:
TEXT (120).
INASMUCH AS PROOF (MEANS OF COGNITION) IS NOT PERVASIVE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE THING'; NOR IS IT ITS Cause', - (4) BECAUSE THERE IS DIFFERENCE, (D) BECAUSE THERE IS NON-CONCOMITANCE, AND (c) BECAUSE IT PROOBEDS FROM THAT, -[MERE ABSENCE OF PROOF CANNOT PROVE THE NON-EXISTENCE OF A THINO) -(120)
COMMENTARY. When one character is pervasive of (more extensive than) another, then alone cloes the absence of the former imply the absence of the latter; similarly the absence of the Cause implies the absence of the effect; and the
