________________
EXAMINATION OF THE IMPORT OF WORDS.
553
perform a single fruitful action; in the same way, it would be only a few things that would bring about the single determinate judgment and yet be many and diverse.-(1051)
It has been argued (under Text 934, by Kumarila) that "Words and Inferential Indicatives do not apply to what is devoid of concomitance. etc. etc."
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (1052). THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALITY' CONSISTS OF THE THING-BY-ITSELF, AS
EXCLUDED FROM WHAT IS NOT ITSELF '; --AN ASSERTION OF CONCOMITANCE CAREFULLY MADE IN THIS FORM WOULD
NOT BE INCONGRUOUS.-(1052)
COMMENTARY
Even though there is no entity in the shape of the Commonalty (Universal), yet, if an assertion of concomitance is made in regard to mere
Specific Individuality' as excluded (differentiated) from unlike things, that would not be incompatible (with our view).-(1052)
Question :-"Why so " Answer
TEXTS (1053-1054).
THAT WHEREIN SUBSISTS THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALITY (Smoke) DIFFERENTIATED FROM Non-smoke, - IN THAT SAME SUBSISTS ALSO THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALITY (Fire) DIFFERENTIATED FROM Nonfire ; AS IN THE Kitchen ; AND HEREIN (IN THE HILL) THERE IS THE Specific Individuality differentiated from Non-smoke; HENCE the Specific Indivi duality differentiated from Non-fire ALSO
MUST BE THERE.-(1053-1054)
COMMENTARY.
* That 'ie. that place.
Herein'-subsists the Specific Individuality distinguished from nonsmoke; this proposition asserts the presence of the Inferential Indicative (Probans) in the subject of the Inference (Hill).
Hence, etc. etc.'-asserte the resultant cognition (Conclusion) brought about by the Premises.
Or, the meaning may be that all the five factors of the Inferential Process may be shown by indicating the concomitance in connection with Specific Individualities.-(1053-1054)
