________________
34
mutual absence of locus of sādhya is not established. All things are namable, hence difference from them is not established. In fourth definition also the absence of sādhya is not established so this definition is faulty.
According to Gangesa all these five definitions are not applicable with ‘kevalānvayi anumāna (aradi-af4-377915). According to Mathurānātha four definitions beginning from second are faulty with regard the inference ‘it has absence of monkey because of existence' because the absence counterpositive-ness of which is determined by the relation which determines the state of sādhya, is not established, the absence of monkey which has incomplete occurrence exists everywhere in this world. Similarly the difference from the locus of ‘vācyatva' (alla) also is not established, whole universe is namable (vācya 0124).
Mathurānātha says that to avoid fault of avyāpti because in the inference 'this tree has conjunction of monkey because of this treeness' the expression ‘sādhyavadbhinna’ (97821019621) is used. That fault is not removed even that is used, because the absence of monkey which exists in quality which is different from that which has ‘sādhya’ exists in this tree also. There is no proof to establish difference in absences due to difference in their substrata. Therefore the fault of avyāpti remains infact, if to avoid this fault, the absence of sādhya is mentioned as qualified by occurrence in that which is different from the locus of sādhya, the word 'absence of sādhya' in the definition will be use-less.
Jāgadiśa has followed Raghunātha, the Jagadīšī is the commentary on Dīdhiti of Raghunātha Siromani, he has explained ideas of Raghunātha, his special contribution is found in the interpretation of fifth definition.
