________________
806
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XIX.
TEXTS (1645–1647). EVEN THEN, THE ABSENCE IN THE HOUSE IS COGNISED FROM THE FAOT OF HIS NOT BEING SEEN THROUGH THE EYES; -WHICH SHOWS THAT THE SAID ABSENCE IN THE HOUSE IS COGNISED THROUGH AN INTERENTIAL INDICATIVE.-ONE WHO IS NOT in the house IS ALWAYS outside of it,-AS IS FOUND IN THE CASE OF THE MAN STANDING IN THE COURTYARD SEEN BY MEN AT THE GATE; THE Man inside the house PROVIDES THE TERM WHERE THE PROBANDUM IS KNOWN TO BE ABSENT.FROM ALL THIS IT FOLLOWS THAT THIS Presumption DOES NOT DIFFER FROM Inference.
-(1645-1647)
COMMENTARY. This shows that Presumption is included under Inference.
For instance, Chaitra is the Subject, the Minor Term ;-his being outside is the Probandum ;-Being alive and yet not being in the house is the Probans, of the nature of an effect the man standing in the courtyard' is the Corroborative Instance per similarity the man in the house is the Corroborative Instance per dissimilarity
"Sadana' is House.
The Invariable Concomitance (the Major Premiss) is indicated by the two Instances.
The Probans cannot be said to be 'inadmissible'. Because absence in the House has been cognised by the non-perception of what should have been perceived, if there'; as for the man being alive, this is said to be ascertained in accordance with the doctrines of the other party. In reality, the Probans is doubtful, as there is no Moans for obtaining a certain cognition of his being alive.
"But it has been said that there are such means as the Word, etc."
In that case, if his being alive has been duly ascertained by means of Word, etc., then that is enough to prove his existence outside what then is there left to be done by Presumption ?
Thus, it is on the basis of the doctrines of the Opponent that we regard the Probans put forward by us as 'admissible', and through the Probans it has been proved that Presumption is included under Inference.-(16451647)
End of Presumption.