________________
INFERENCE.
717
TEXTS (1457–1469),
"Inference for one's our sake CANNOT BE RIGHT-BECAUSE IT IS BROUGHT
ABOUT BY THE THREE-FEATURED INDICATIVE, WHICH IS SUBVERSIVE OF WHAT IS DESIRABLE,-LIKE WRONG COGNITION.-NOR CAN THE PRESENCE OF THE THREE FEATURES IN THE INDICATIVE BE REGARDED AS THE MEANS OF INFERENCE ; AS THEY ARE PRESENT ALSO WHERE THERE IS NO INFERENCE, JUST LIKE THE TWO FEATURES':-FURTHER, THE CONTRADIOTTON OF INFERENCE IS POSSIBLE IN EVERY REASONING, SO ALSO THERE IS POSSIBILITY IN EVERY CASE OF THE INFERRING OF MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY CONCLUSIONS : AND THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF FINDING A REASON WHICH IS CONCOMITANT (NOT-SEPARARLE) WITH THE CONTRARY OF THE DESIRED CONCLUSION (DEDUCED FROM AN INFERENCE)."-(1457-1459)
COMMENTARY.
Inference for one's own sake cannot be right because it is brought about by the three-featured Indicative,-like the Wrong Cognition. Here is a Wrong Cognition based upon a three-featured Indicative]— The eye and other organs are for the purpose of other persons, becanse they are composite things ; like the Couch, the Seat and such things'; this is a wrong cognition, being subversive of a desirable idea, but brought about by a three-featured Indiontive; and like this the Inference in question also is brought about by a three-featured Indicative, and hence it must be wrong.
Nor can the presence of the Three Features in the Indicative be the means of Inference; because, like the Two Features, they are present also where there is no Inference.
Further, in every reasoning, contradiction of Inference would be possible; for example, it would always be possible to put forward the Inference that
The intended Probandum cannot reside in the Subjeet (Minor Term), because it is a part of the aggregate of all these several factors, like the form svf the Minor Term itself and this would put an end to all Inferences.
Then again, in all cases, when an Inference has been put forward, there is always a possibility of several undesirable contingencies being put forward ; for instance, when the Inference has been put forward that Sound is noneternal, because it is a product, like the Jar', -some one might set up the argument to the contrary, that just as the reason asserted proves the non. eternality of Sound, so does it also prove the fact of its not being the quality of Akasha', and so forth.
Lastly, in every case, it is possible to find a Reason that is concomitant with the contrary of the desired Conclusion; for instance, the inference having been put forward, that Sound is non-eternal, because it is a product, like the Jar', some one may put forward the following reasoning which is concomitant with and proves) the contrary of this conclusion-Sound is
