________________
EXAMINATION OF THE FIRST CATEGORY'SUBSTANCE?.
347
accepted ; as it is entirely embraced within the folds of the first component, how can it have any opportunity of subsisting in the other component at the same time 1 Otherwise, if it subsisted at the same time in the other component also, then it could not have subsisted in the first component in its entirety. It can have no other form in which it could subsist in the other component also; because in that case, it could not be regarded as one-(607-608)
The following Text formulates the argument:
TEXT (609). JUST AS THE BABY DOES NOT OCCUPY THE LAP OF A SECOND NURSE,SO A SUBSTANCE EMBRACED IN ONE COULD NOT SUBSIST IN
ANOTHER (COMPONENT).-(609)
COMMENTARY. The argument may be formulated as follows:When a thing is embraced by one thing, it cannot subsist in another thing at the same time ;-.g. when a baby is occupying the lap of one nurse, it cannot occupy the lap of another nurse the substance (composite) is embraced by one compo. nent and thus there is perceived a character which is contrary to your conclusion.
The substance condid not subsist in another':-this states the first conclusion of the argument.-(609)
The Author next states the argument in support of the contrary of the Opponent's conclusion, which is thus annulled by it :
TEXTS (610-611).
IF THE COMPOSITE ESSENTIALLY RELATED TO ONE COMPONENT SUBSISTED IN SOME OTHER COMPONENT OCCUPYING A PLACE OTHER THAN THAT OF THE SAID COMPONENT, THEN IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE TWO COMPONENTS OCCUPY THE SAME PLACE AND ARE ESSENTIALLY ONE AND THE SAME, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DIFFERENTIATED. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COMPOSITE SUBSISTED IN THE OTHER COMPONENT IN ANOTHER FORM, THEN AS OCCUPYING TWO PLACES, THE COMPOSITE COULD NOT BE one; SPECIALLY AS DIFFERENCE IN FORM (AND CHARACTER) MUST CONSTITUTS DIFFERENCE IN THE TRING
ITSELF.-(610-611)
COMMENTARY,
If the composite substance, which has its form and character connected with one Component, subsisted in another Component which occupies another
