________________
ON QUALITY
AS A CATEGORY.
379
It has been argued (under Text 661. above) that-"The notion of the man with the Ear-riny, etc. etc." -This is answered in the following
TEXT (670).
THE NOTION OF THE MAN WITH THE EAR-BING'ARISES ONLY WITH
REFERENCE TO Chaitra (THE MAN) AND TEE EAR-RING, IN WHOM A PARTICULAR CONDITION HAS COME ABOUT ; AND IT ONLY APPEARS AS IF THE COGNITION WERE OF
CONJUNCTION' (BETWEEN THE TWO) -(670)
COMMENTARY. Just as what is called Conjunction comes into existence only when Chaitra and the Ear-ring appear in a certain state-and not always: in the same manner, the notion also of the man with the Ear-ring' is due to a particular state of things, and as such, why should it appear always !
The compound Jalavasthāvishēsayoh' is to be explained as the two, Chaitra and the Ear-ring, in wliom a particular state has been produced '. -(870)
It has been argued (under Text 662, above) that. It is only something that has been perceived to be present in one place that is denied in another place, etc. etc.".-The answer to this is provided in the following
TEXT (671).
IT IS THE ONE peculiar condition SEEN IN ONE PLACE WHICH 18 DENIED
IN ANOTHER PLACE.-AS REGARDS THE NOTION CHAITRA IS without THE EAR-RING, IT IS NOT Conjunction THAT IS DENIED : FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THIS Cox
JUNCTION HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN.-(671)
COMMENTARY
The notion in question has been explained as being based upon a certain state of things, and when this state of things, which should be perceptible, is not perceived under another state of things, then there is its denial (in regard to this latter state of things);- and what is denied is not the Conjunction that is assumed by you. For the simple reason that the Conjunction has never appeared in any Cognition, apart from the things to which it is held to belong
