________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERMANENCE OF THINGS. 275
this latter is the highest among the Means of Cognition ; but Inference and the rost can never alter the nature of a thing as cognised through Sense. perception ; as they are weaker.
Firmly established', -i.e. free from Doubt and Mistake.
"To the contrary',-i.c. otherwise than that coguised through Sense. perception.-(450)
With the following Tect, the Author answers the above arguments of Kumarila -
TEXT (457)
IF existence at the present time IS HELD BY YOU TO BE DISTINOT FROM THE PREVIOUS EXISTENCE, THEN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM
BECOMES PROVED BY YOURSELF.-(457)
COMMENTARY.
It has been asserted that the object of Recognition is existence at the present time ;-is this present existence different from the existence apprehended by the previous Perception ? Or, is it the same! If it is different, then difference being proved by your own assertion, there is contradiction of your own doctrine ; shile for us, it is what is desired by us.-(457)
TEXT (458)
IF THE present existence is not different (FROM THE previous eristence), THEN HOW IS IT THAT IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PREVIOUS COGNITION? IN FACT, IF IT WERE NOT INCLUDED THEREIN,
THEN IT WOULD COME TO THIS THAT THE TRING
ITSELF WAS NOT APPREHENDED AT ALL.-(458)
COMMENTARY.
If the present existence' is something different from the previous existence, then, how could it have been not-included in the previous Cogni. tion, on account of which you have asserted (under Teart 452) that it is not included in the previous Cognition'?
The following might be urged.--"The momentary character of Sound and other things, though not anything different from these things, is said to be nol-apprehended when the things are apprehended ; the same may be true in the case in question also."
This is not right. It is not true that while the object, Sound, is apprehended, its momentary character, though not different from it, is held to
