________________
INFERENCE
699
and as such it is indicative of the thing spoken of, just as the Smoke is of Fire ; and this is accepted by us; but not as being expressive of the thing,
As regards the Lamp, it is not admitted to be even the Indicator like Smoke: all that is admitted is that it has come to be popularly regarded as the Indicator (making things known) by reason of its making the Jar, etc. (objects cognised) capable of bringing about the cognition ; but the words are not inferential Indicatives ; hence any discussion as to the Indicative subsisting in the Subject cannot arise in this case. If it did arise in this case, then why could not the same discussion arise in the case of the Eye and the rest (which are the means of Sense-perception, not Inferential Indicatives)?
Otherwise, etc. etc.' ;-this sums up the subject matter under consideration. The sense is that, even though Visibility is invariably concomitant with non-eternality, it does not prove this non eternality in Sound.
Thus then, inasmuch as in all cases, the condition of subsisting in the Subject must be present, by admitting this as a necessary condition, those Probans that have been cited as one-featured', must, necessarily, become
two-featured',-and those cited as two-featured' must become threefeatured'. Thus, on account of the necessity of subsistence in the Subject, it is the one featured Probans that are really impotent.
It cannot be right to argue that such characters as subsisting in the Subject are all implied by that of being otherwise impossible, and hence they cannot form so many different independent characteristics of the Probans"_because the other party has himself asserted that there is the character of being otherwise impossible', even when subsistence in the Subject is not there, in the following passage-" Through the character of being otherwise impossible the Lamp and other things are actually indicative of things, even though they do not reside in the subject (Text 1378, above)".
In the case of Visibility, even though non-eternality' is otherwise impossible', visibility does not subsist in the Subject. So that in every way what has been asserted is entirely doubtful.(1408-1416)
It has been argued above,--under Text 1370—that " in the case of the Reasoning He is dark because he is the son of so and so , even though the Probans has all the three features, yet it is not conducive to certainty of cognition ".
The answer to that is as follows:
TEXT (1416). IN THE CASE OF SUCH PROBANS AS BECAUSE HE IS THE SON OF SO AND so ', THE CONTRARY BEING OPEN TO DOUBT, THE three CONDITIONS ARE NOT PRESENT; BECAUSE WHAT IS CITED IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONTRARY,
-(1416)
COMMENTARY. It may be possible that the child may be the son of the man and yet be not darl;—there being no incompatibility in this, the absence of the Probans
