________________
७२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
(५५) न च साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तित्वविशिष्टसाध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वं वक्तव्यम्, एवञ्च वृक्षस्य विशिष्टाधिकरणत्वाभावात् न अव्याप्तिरिति
because this tree-ness exists in the tree which has the absence of the conjunction of monkey which absence exists in that which is different from that which has the conjunction of monkey because there is absence of proof for the theory that absence is different due to difference in substratum.
(55) It should not be said that-there is not fault of too narrow application when it is stated-'The absence of existence in that which has the absence of that which is to be established qualified by the existence in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established because in this way the tree is not a qualified substratum. This is because in that case the expression the absence of that which is to be established will be purpose-less. Hence, existence in that which is qualified by the existence in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established is the correct form of definition, because there is no fault of impossibility in a valid reason due to the absence of the qualified substratum-hood in the locus of the reason. And there is a fault of too narrow application by taking mutual absence through the method of the filter action in the inference; "this mountain has fire because of smoke' where that which is to be established has many substrata while the all mutual absences which have the counter-positive-ness which exists in that which has that which is to be established are included in the third definition, this also should be noted.
