Nyaya Ratnamala of Parthasarathi Misra 4.2.p8.7

4.2.p8.7

Exclusion even from all counter-instances is hard to obtain, because there is no non-perception of what is perceptible. By elimination, this is just perception. Nor is it non-perceptual because it is not understood at the first sight; for, like the true nature of a gem, it is plausible that it is an object of perception aided by repeated acquaintance. Objection: Perception has the present as its object; then how can the invariant relation, whose essence is connection with other places and times, be understood by it? It is answered: The invariant relation is not a connection with other times and the like, but rather the intrinsic nature of smoke and the rest. And since that is present, it is proper that it is graspable by perception. For in order to grasp the invariant relation, a connection with other places and the like does not have to be grasped, just as with the enduring form of walls and the like. For it is not the case that because their connection with another time is imperceptible, their form is imperceptible. If that were so, 'this is not silver' would not sublate the previous cognition at a later time, because the objects would be different. For at the previous time, silver was posited by the cognition of silver; and at the later time, there is its absence; so, because the objects are different, how could there be sublation? Therefore, one must say that enduring silver was grasped; and it is said: 'For the silver being grasped is understood to be long-lasting.'