________________
९२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
वा निवेशस्य फलमाह-न वेति । एकव्यक्तिसाधके सकलसाध्योक्तौ अपि अव्याप्तिः अग्रे स्थास्यतीत्याशयेन नाना इत्युक्तम् ।*
(जा.१५) अव्याप्यवृत्तीति । कपिसंयोगी एतत्त्वादित्यादौ इत्यर्थः। यद्यप्यग्रे हेत्वभावस्यापि प्रतियोगिवैयधिकरण्यावच्छिन्नस्यैव निवेश: करणीयः इति अव्याप्यवृत्तिहेतावव्याप्तिः सम्भवति तथापि यथाश्रुतमूलस्य न तत्र अव्याप्तिरित्यावेदयितुं व्याप्यवृत्तिहेतूक्तिः ।
(दी.७) अव्याप्यवृत्तिसाध्यकव्याप्यवृत्तिसद्धेतावव्याप्तेर्व्यभिचारिणि चाव्याप्यवृत्तावतिव्याप्तेर्वारणाय अभावद्वये प्रतियोगि
not. There would be a fault of too narrow application in the inference where that which is to be established is only one individual when all that which is to be established is mentioned taking in to account this ‘many is stated by author.
(J.15) “Partial existent means in the inference; 'this has the conjunction of monkey, because of this tree-ness.' Though in later the absence of reason' also, is to be included as delimited by non-existence with its counter-positive. Therefore the fault of too narrow application in the partial existent reason also possible, yet to inform that there is no fault of too narrow application according to original text ‘non partial existent reason' is stated.
(D.7) Both absences should be known as non-existent with counter-positive, to avoid over-extantion in invalid reason,
★ Editor's Note : न चैकव्यक्तिसाध्यकस्थलेऽपि द्वित्वाद्यवच्छिन्नाभावमादायाऽसम्भवः, न त्वव्याप्तिरिति
वाच्यम् । व्यासज्यवृत्तिधर्मानवच्छिन्नत्वविशेषणेनैव तद्वारणसम्भवात् । This text is available in printed book of '2114 with Jāgdisi which is explained by Vāmācaranbhattacārya, but not translated by translater.
