________________
976
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXIII.
The following Texts show how there is no snch incompatibility (with the Idealistic position)
TEXTS (2055-2056).
JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE EXTERNAL THINGS, WATER AND THE REST, THE PRESENCE OF ACTUAL CAPACITY IS REGARDED AS THE REGULATING FACTOR IN CONFORMITY', THIS SAME CONFORMITY OF COGNI. TION' IS FOUND IN THE CASE OF OTHER COGNITIONS (INFERENTIAL, ETC.) ALSO. SO THAT, IN VIEW OP WHAT APPEARS IN INFERENCE, THE REASON ADDUCRD BY THE OPPONENT IS TOO WIDE' (HENCE
INCONCLUSIVE').–CERTAINLY THE FORM OF FIRE AND OTHER THINGS (IN. FERRED) WHICH IS QUITE CLEAR AND DISTINOT, IS NOT LIKE THAT OF THE INFERENCE ITSELY.-(2055-2056)
COMMENTARY.
Then again, though the Inferential Cognition is devoid of the objective substratum, yet it is in conformity with reality ; so that the Reason adduced is clearly found where the Probandum is absent, and hence, like cognisability, it is clearly 'too wide', hence Inconclusive
It might be argued that we do not admit that Inferential Cognition is devoid of objective substratum ".
The answer to that is- Certainly, the form, etc. etc.'-This argument may be thus formulated :- When a cognition is devoid of the form of something, it cannot be regarded as having that for its objective basis,-e.g. the Cognition of Colour does not have Sound for its objective; --Inferential Cognition is devoid of the external form ;-hence there is apprehension of something that is contrary to a wider factor.-The Reason adduced here cannot be regarded as 'Inadmissible'; because the form of the Fire is quite clear and distinct; and as such, it is not like the form of the Inferential Cognition (of that Fire); because the Inferential Cognition is always somewhat hazy and indefinite.--If it were not so, then the Fire which, in Perception, is cognised in a well-defined form, as due to the burning of grasses and leaves, would appear in the samo definite form in Inference also; as a matter of fact, what does appear in Inference has abandoned its well-defined form and appears only in a vague general form in accordance with the Indicative on which the Inference is based. Hence so far as the External Object is concerned, it does not appear in Inference at all. Nor can one and the same thing have two forms-the General and the Particular, which are mutually contradictory, as already explained before.-Nor can the Reason be regarded As Contradictory'; because it is present where the Probandum is present.