________________
29
of monkey, which exists in a tree, and which exists in the quality are different, in this case the undetermined(aniyantrita 37f73fata locus-ness of the absence of conjunction is unestablished. Therefore it is better to remove mentioned fault of ‘avyāpti' by second definition ‘sādhyavadbhinna' etc.
2. Sādhyavadbhinnasādhyābhāvavadavrttitvam, (HTZवद्भिन्नसाध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वम्). This definition is mentioned to remove the fault of too narrow application ‘avyāpti' in the inference “this has the conjunction of monkey because of this tree. Here this tree which has absence of sādhya is not different from the locus of sādhya, quality etc. which has the absence of sādhya is different from the locus of sādhya because conjunction which is a quality dose not exist in quality, hence in the quality which is the locus of absence of sādhya, this tree-ness (etadvriksatvaVaegtra) dose not exist, there is no fault of ‘avyāpti.'
Raghunātha Siromani has refuted this definition. According to him the absence of conjunction which exists in quality and action is not different from the absence of conjunction which exists in the tree, there is no proof to prove difference in absence due to difference in it's substrata.
According to Mathurānātha in the definition Sādhyavadbhinnasādhyābhāvavadavrttitvam (HTE207967HTEZIHidacqua) the word ‘sādhyavadbhinna’ is useless by the word 'sādhyavadbhinnavrttitvam' early mentioned fault is avoided, this tree-ness (etadvskśatva-Treetra) does not occurred in quality etc. which is different from that which has sādhya.
3. Sādhyavatpratiyogikānyonyābhāvasāmānyadhikaranyam (Feza ufaf ARĪRTACHAPIRET V44)
Mathurānāth has explained this definition following way 'absence of occurrence indicated by the substratum of the mutual absence which indicates counter-positive-ness exists in
