________________
OTHER FORMS AND MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE.
789
Or, the text may be explained in another way :- Tadananyagatëh'-- since, of the word existing at the time of usage, there is no difference from the word perceived at the time of the making of the Convention. How is it known that there is no difference 1-Answer-Because what is non-eternal, etc. etc. '-(1600-1601)
The following Texts describe the Presumption based upon Negation :
TEXTS (1602-1606). (7) THE ABSENCE OF Chaitra FROM THE HOUSE HAVING BEEN COGNISED
THROUGH NEGATION, THE COGNITION OF THE PRESENCE OF Chaitra OUTSIDE THE HOUSE WHICH IS MARKED BY HIS ABSENCE, HAS BEEN CITED; THIS IS TO BE REGARDED AS ANOTHER KIND OF PRESUMPTION, based upon Negation. [Shlokavārtika-Arthāpatti, 8-9].-THIS (PRESUMPTION) IS DIFFERENT FROM INFERENCE, BECAUSE THE MINOR PREMISS (Probans as residing in the Minor Term) AND THE OTHER FACTORS DO NOT FORM PART OF IT. WHEN THE object cognised, IS EITHER THE MAN CONNECTED WITH THE EXTERIOR (OF THE HOUSE), OR THE EXTERIOR CONNECTED WITH THE MAN, --IN EITHER CASE, HOW COULD 'ABSENCE IN THE HOUSE 'SERVE AS THE PROBANS (RESIDING IN THAT SUBJECT) -[Ibid., 10-12].-WHAT IS REGARDED AS THE PROBANS IN THIS CASE IS THE ABSENCE OF THE LIVING MAN IN THE HOUSE; AND THERE CAN BE NO COGNITION OF THIS ABSENCE WITHOUT KNOWING HIS PRESENCE outside the House. [Ibid., 19].-AS FOR PURE ABSENCE IN THE HOUSE',- APART FROM THE IDEA OF HIS BEING alive-SUCH ABSENCE IS FOUND IN THE CASE OF DEAD PERSONS ALSO, AND HENCE CANNOT BE A PROOF OF HIS presence outside ".-[Ibid., 21).-(1602-1606)
COMMENTARY.
The absence of Chaitra has been cognised by the Negation-absence, of Perception and other Means of Cognition the House is qualified by this ascertained absence ;-i.e. the idea that Chaitra is not in the House'; and the presence of Chaitra, -if he is alive-is cognised as being outside of the said House ;-this cognition, in the form Chaitra is outside the house', has been cited in the Bhāşya, by Shabarasvämin; that is, only as an indication of the other kinds of Presumption ; e.g. when Dēvadatta is alive, if he is not in the house, there is Presumption of him as being out of the house.
This is an example of Presumption based upon Negation.
Almost all Naiyāyikās have included Presumption under Inference '. In refutation of this view, Kumarila adds- This is different from Inference, etc. etc. -Inasmuch as the Probans, etc. do not enter into it as factorsas its causes-this must be different from Inference ; just like Perception. Because the object of cognition in this case is either Chaitra qualified by the