________________
ESAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERMANENCE OF THINGS. 283
low flame, it is at one moment very bright and at the next moment, less bright. How then can our Reason be false ?"
Such is the sense of what the Opponent says.
In answer to this, the Author adds-How is it, etc.—That is, the qualification also is one that is not admitted. As a matter of fact, even in regard to the character of the Opponent's intended Probandum, there is annulment ; -why is that also not perceived ? For instance, in regard to Chaitra and other persons, the Cognition of them that is produced is in such diverse forms as infant', boy', 'youth' and so forth,-in regard to the mountain and such things, the notions are diverse in the shape of cold, 'hot', etc. So that, as in the case of the Lamp, so in the case of these things also, the diversity of the cognised thing is clearly perceived. If it were not so, then, if the same mountain that was cold subsequently bocame hob,then under both conditions both cold and heat would be perceptiblo there; because the said qualified conditions being related to the thing, the qualities would have to be regarded as present there ; for instance, when a man tied to a chain is palled, the chain also becomes pulled, This has been nearly all explained before.-Thus even with the said qualification, the Reason is wproven', 'not admitted'.-(472)
The annulment of the Opponent's argument by Inference also is next shown
TEXTS (473-474).
THE COGNITIONS UNDER DISPUTE CANNOT PERTAIN TO ONE AND THE SAME THING, BECAUSE THEY APPEAR IN SUCCESSIOX,-LIKE THE COGNITIONS PERTAINING TO LIGHTNING, LAMP AND SUCH THINGS.-IN ALL COGNITIONS PERTAINING TO ONE AND THE SAME THING, THE PRESENCE OF SUCCESSION IS INCOMPATIBLE. AND WHEN THE EFFECT IS THE SAME, EVEN THE DEPENDENCE OF OTHER THINGS WOULD BE INCONGRUOUS.
-(473-474)
COMMENTARY
The argument may be formulated thus :What appears in succession can never have its completo cause always in close proximity to it, as the cognitions of Lightning, Lamp and such things the Cognitions under dispute all appear in succession - hence there is found something which is contrary to that with which the desired character is invariably concomitant.-- This Reason cannot be said to be 'inconclusive'; because succession is not possible in the Cognition of any single object, the completo cause of which Cognition is present.-Nor can the cause be said to be dependent on other causes (which could account for the succession); because what is permanent cannot be helped by such aids; and no dependence can rightly be held to lie on what is not helpful; as this would lead to absurdities. If there were
