________________
852
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XX.
TEXTS (1760-1762).
*** HOW CAN THE EYE BE PRODUCTIVE OF THE COGNITION OF THE Blue
AND OTHER THINGS, IF IT IS HELD TO HAVE THAT FORM ALONE WHICH IS DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE Blue AND OTHERS? IN FACT, JUST AS THE EAR IS NOT REGARDED AS PRODUCTIVE OF THE COGNITION OF Blue, ETC., ON ACCOUNT OF ITS BEING DIFFERENT FROM THE Blue, etc. WHICH ARE PRODUCTIVE OF THE COGNITION OF Blue, ETC.,--SO ALSO THE EYE SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS THE CAUSE OF THAT COGNITION.-How COULD ANY OTHER THING, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PRODUCTIVE CAUSE, BE PRODUCTIVE OF IT? - FROM ALL THIS FOLLOWS THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE MUST BE INCLUSIVENESS ALSO AMONG THINGS."-(1760-1762)
COMMENTARY
"If the Eye be held to be that which has a form exclusive of the Blue, etc.,-and not any that is inclusive ; this is what is meant by the particle *eva', 'alone';-in that case the Eye cannot be the cause of the perception of the Blue, etc. ; because it has been differentiated (excluded) from what is productive of that perception ;-when a thing has been excluded from the Cause of a certain thing, it cannot be the Cause of that thing; e.g. the Ear which, being differentiated from the Blue, etc., which are the cause of the perception of the Blue, etc., is not the cause of the perception of the Blue, etc. ;-the Eye also is (ex hypothesi) differentiated from the Blue, etc., which are the cause of the perception of Blue, etc. ;-hence there is the possibility of an apprehension contrary to a universal truth.
As a matter of fact however, it is not so [i.e. the Eye is not non-productive of the perception of Blue, etc.).-Hence the truth should be otherwise than this; that is, when one thing is productive of another, it cannot be excluded from the nature of being so productive,-e.g. the Blue, which is productive of the perception of Blue, cannot be excluded from its own nature ; --and the Eye is actually productive of the perception of the Blue, etc. So this is a Reason based upon the nature of things.
In the same way Blue, etc. may be made the Minor Term in the Reasoning.
From all this it follows that there is inclusiveness among things.
Thus through the contrary of the Reductio ad absurdum, it has been shown that the example cited is not admissible.-(1760-1762)
The following might be urged—"The thing could be excluded from the other things and yet be productive of the Cognition; so that the Reductio ad Absurdum is Inconclusive".
This is what is answered in the following