________________
26
Sādhyasāmānyādhikaranatva (HTZIARIETC uca) 3. Sādhyavaiyadhikaranyādhikraṇatva. (Heya afya yugtfurca) 4. Sadhyavadanyabhāvadhikranatva. (साध्यवदन्याभावाधिकरणत्व) 5.
Hetvadhikaranavritti abhavapratiyogikatva. (हेत्वधिकरणवृत्त्यHayfeifcora) etc. On the basis of absence of sādhya many definitions of deviation can be made. When in the end of definitions of deviation the term absence (abhāva) is used that definitions become definitions of vyāpti.
The sādhyābhāva-vadavrittitva (H2H10aGaraia) is first definition is personated by Gangesa. For the condition of vyāpti, there is no need to see the coexistence of hetu and sādhya in all
aces. Similarly there is no need to perceive all counterpositives of absence to grasp absence, after knowing one instance of smoke one can cognize the absence of smoke in the hot-iron-ball, and when one instance of absence of smoke is found in the locus of reason viz. fire the deviation becomes clear in between smoke and fire and when the perception of smoke does not happen in the locus of the absence of fire the deviation is not cognizer in between fire and smoke, therefore vyāpti' in the form of absence of deviation is recognized. Thus the non-apprehension of deviation brings out the vyāpti, in the form of non-deviation.
1. Sadhyābhāva-vadavrittitvam. (HTEZH10acqarah) 'the mountain has fire because of smoke’-this inference is based on the definition of vyāpti as “Sadhyābhāva-vadavrittitvam.” Here sādhya is fire, the absence of fire is sadhyābhāva, the locus of it is water etc. there smoke does not exist. Therefore there is absence of occurrence in the smoke, hence this definition is applied in this inference. But if some one wants to infer smoke on the basis of fire, this definition of vyāpti can't be applied, because in the locus of absence of smoke viz. hot-iron-ball the
