________________
28
37910gal) by any characteristic and which is indicated by early mentioned sādhyābhāvatva. (HTZT410a) The idea is here the absence of conjunction of monkey always with a part of tree viz. a branch and not root, there is absence of conjunction on monkey therefore the substratum-ness of the absence of mokey is determined by its root it is not ‘niravacchinna’ (Farosgal). The absence of monkey in quality etc. is not delimited by any attribute, therefore the locus-ness of the absence of conjunction on monkey non-determined is in quality and not in the tree, hence the quality would be locus of non-determined locus-ness and there tree-ness does not exist, therefore definition of vyāpti is applied, but there would be fault of avyāpti in the inference 'this has the absence of monkey because of existence here then on determined locus of absence of sādhya is not established. The conjunction of monkey is delimited by branches etc. Mathurānāth answers that Ācārya Gangesa has himself refuted this definition by the expression “Kevalānvayinyabhāvāt? (केवलान्वयिन्यभावात्). Hence this fault should not be considered
here.
The effort of Mathurānāth to remove the fault shown by Raghunātha is to make another definition only, without change in definition Mathurānath also can't remove the fault of avyāpti (31241A). Gangesa also has removed that fault by making second definition ‘sādhyavadbhinna’ (FTE207967) etc. Therefore there is similarity in their efforts.
Besides in the opinion of those who present the first definition ‘sādhyābhāvavadavrtitva' (HTETT 910ldgafela) the absence of conjunction on monkey is different in each locus due to difference in substratum, because two opposite attributes viz. complete occurrence and incomplete occurrence can't exist in one and same place, the absence of conjunction
