________________
INTERENCE.
721
tine, thero is absence of incompatibility and where there is absence of inconipatibility, there is validity; and validity and invalidity are mutually exclusive,
the incompatibility consisting in the fact that where the one is present the other cannot be present and where the one is absent, the other is present; so that by implication the Probans put forward by the Opponent is contradictory :-(1468)
The following Tecls proceed to show that the Corroborative Instance (cited by the Opponent in 1457, that of Wrong Cognition') is devoid of the Probandum :
TEXTS (1469-1471).
WHEN THE WRONG COGNITION, AS 'SUBVERSIVE OF WHAT IS DESIRABLE,
IS SPOKEN OF AS BEING SIMILAR', THE SIMILARITY' MEANT MUST BE ONLY THAT OF THE VIEW OF THE FIRST PARTY,-AND NOT real SIMILARITY ; BECAUSE AS REGARDS THE REAL STATE OF THINGS, THE COGNITION IN QUESTION HAS BEEN DEFINITELY FOUND TO BE not incompatible; IN FACT, IT IS IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THAT IT IS A VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST WHAT IS DESIRED BY THE DISTUTANT. — THUS THE REASON ADDUCED IS FOUND TO BE CONTRADICTORY :AND THE CORROBORATIVE INSTANCE ALSO IS FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF THE PROBANDUM, IN THE SAME WAY, IN THE SECOND ARGUMENT, THE PROBANS IS 'INADMISSIBLE':-(1469-1471)
COMMENTARY
As proving the contrary of what is desired by the disputant, the cognition in question must be valid; otherwise, if it were meant that all coguitions iure invalid and at all times, in regard to another Probandun,—then, such invalidity might affect Sense-perception also. In fact, it has boen spoken of 2** * wrong Cognition', only in reference to the view of the First Party.The term pūrvapaksa' here stands for the paksa', view of the pūrva, the First Party. One who holds the view that the Eye and the rest appertain only to an object which is essentially incapable of any additional features imposed upon it, it is only in reference to the view of such a party that the Cognition could be spoken of as 'wrong': because (under that view) the Eye, etc. have been proved to be the Cause of many fleeting cognitions.
Oontradictory'; because the character of being brought about by the Three-featured Indicative' is never present in any invalid Cognition - and when the cognition so brought about is valid, then the said character is present in that same Cognition which is subversive of what is desired (by the Disputant).
Says the Opponent : When an argument to the contrary is urged against the Materialist, then the Corroborative Instance cannot be one that is admitted (by both parties). The opponent does not admit the validity of tho Cognition of what is subversive of what is desired; and what is not admittod by either of the two parties cannot Horvu u 4 Corroborative Instance.
46
