________________
32
particular colour is one, therefore ‘All can't be qualifier of sādhya. According to Mathurānātha the word 'All in this definition, is used in the sense of inclusion (aśesa 37979) not many, therefore there is no early mentioned fault where is only one substratum of absence of sādhya that also will be included, therefore ‘Allis qualifier of the substratum of the absence of sādhya.
5. sādhyavadanyāvrittitvam (HTEYOPATH)
In the inference ‘hill has fire because of smoke the fire is sādhya the locus of sādhya is hill other than that is water where is the absence of smoke so there in smoke, is the absence of occurrence (vrttitva qard). In this way definition is applied. In the invalid inference this has smoke because of fire this definition is not applied, in the hot-iron-ball which is different from the locus of sādhya, fire exists there, therefore there is no absence of occurrence in fire.
In this definition the absence of occurrence (vrttitva) should be known as the absence of occurrence in general, because there is absence of occurrence indicated (nirūpita Fafya) by water in fire, hence there is a fault of over extension in the invalid inference ‘hill has smoke because of fire', in the occurrence in general, includes the occurrence indicated by hot-iron-ball, the absence of that occurrence dose not exist in fire, occurs in the hot-iron-ball.
The substratum of sādhya should be known by that relation by which sādhya is desired to be established in the subject (paksa 48), otherwise there would be fault of ‘avyāpti’ in the inference ‘hill has fire because of smoke' by the relation inherence (samavāya 44911) fire exists in the part of fire other than that is hill where smoke occurs, here desired relation is conjunction, (samyoga ier) by this relation fire exists in the
