________________
OTHER FORMS AND MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE.
829
It might be argued that"what are meant to be proved are not the Relation of Canse and Effect and Non-existence themselves, but the ordinary usage regarding these."
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (1698). FOR THE PROVING OF THE CAPABILITY OF BEING USED (SPOKEN OF, REGARDED) AS SUCH, THERE IS THE EXAMPLE OF THE THING
COGNISED AT THE TIME OF THE CONVENTION.-(1698)
COMMENTARY. Tadbhāvavyavahāra is the vyavahāra, usage, -of tho bhāva', character, of 'cause and effect' and 'non-existence', -That is, what is meant to be proved is the capacity of being spoken of as expressed by a certain name.-[And in this way, the two Means of Cognition become included tinder Inference)-The arguments being formulated as follows:
(A) Things that, by their nature, are perceived aiter the operation of a certain thing, are capable of being spoken of as the effect of that thing, e.g. the things perceived at the time of Convention: the Jar is found to be perceived only after the Operation of the Potter; so also Words are found to be perceived only after the Operation of the Palate and other portions of the Mouth-this being a Probans based upon the nature of things.
(B) Similarly in the case of Non-apprehension', if usage is what is meant to be proved, then the Inferential Reasoning may be formulated as follows:-When certain things capable of being apprehended are not apprehended in certain places, they are to be spoken of as non-existent in those places;-.g. the Head of the Hare is one that can be spoken of as a place where the Horn is non-existent and as regards the doctrine of Universals', it is found that the Universal' and other categories postulated by others, which are held to be perceptible, are not perceived at all in individuals like the spotted Cow for instance, which are supposed to be the substratum of the said Universal'; so that here 'Non-apprehension is in the very nature of these things. As regards the Individuals,—the spotted and other cows-these are duly perceived, hence these are not rejected as non-existent.
Nor can the Probans be said to be 'Inconclusive '; because the idea that there is only manifestation (by the Cause, of what already exists) is going to be rejected.
It is only on the basis of these facts that things are spoken of as 'nonexistent.
Nor can the Probans be said to be Contradictory', as it is actually present in all cases where the Probandum is known to be present.-(1698)