________________
८८
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
साध्यप्रतियोगिकाभावस्तोमस्य अधिकरणाप्रसिद्धरत आह-साध्याभाववतीति । तथा च साकल्यं न साध्याभावविशेषणम्, अतो नाप्रसिद्धिरिति६० भावः ।
___(जा.११) केचित्तु ननु धूमवान् वह्नः इत्यादि व्यभिचारिणि अतिव्याप्तिः, साध्याभाववद्यत्किञ्चिन्निष्ठाभावप्रतियोगित्वादित्यत आहसाकल्यं साध्याभाववतीति । ननु एवमपि साध्याभाववन्निखिलान्तर्गते महानसादौ वर्तमानस्य अभावस्य प्रतियोगित्वं धूमादौ नास्तीति
Therefore author says ‘in that which has the absence of that which is to be established', hence ‘all' is not the qualifier of the absence of that which is to be established, therefore there is no fault of non-established60 (substratum).
___ (J.11) Some of logicians say, that there is a fault of too wide application in the devious reason as; “it has smoke because of fire.” This is because it (fire) is the counter-positive of the absence which exists in something which has the absence of that which is to be established. Therefore ‘all' is connected with that which has the absence of that which is to be established. Here is an objection-in this way also there the fault of too narrow application will remain intact, because the counter-positive-ness of the absence which exists in kitchen etc., which is included in
61. Fiftros:-No fault of non-establishment. If the "all” is a qualification
of the absence of sādhya then only is the fault of non-establishment of locus of all absences of sādhya, if “all” would be qualifier of locus of the absence of sādhya, then there would not be fault of nonestablishment this the idea.
