________________
३२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
अन्योन्याभावस्य व्याप्यवृत्तितानियमवादिनये अन्योन्याभावात्यन्ताभावस्य प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकस्वरूपत्वेऽपि अव्याप्यवृत्तिमदन्योन्याभावाभावस्य व्याप्यवृत्तिस्वरूपस्याऽतिरिक्तस्याभ्युपगमात्, तच्च अग्रे स्फुटीभविष्यति ।
(२३) ननु तथापि समवायादिना गगनादिहेतुके इदं वह्निमद् गगनादित्यादावतिव्याप्तिः वहन्यभाववति हेतुतावच्छेदकसमवायादिसम्बन्धेन गगनादेरवृत्तेः । न च तल्लक्ष्यमेव, २३ हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन
determinant of counter-positive-ness the absence of the mutual absence of that which has that which is partially existent is accepted different in the form on non-partial existent, this view will be made clear latter on.
(23) Now here is the objection-yet there is a fault of too wide application, in the inference; 'it has fire because of having ether' where ether is a reason by the relation inherence. This is because ether dose not exists in the substratum of the absences of fire by the relation inherence. It should not be said that-this is a valid reason23 because of the absence of the existence in the subject, there is usage of invalid reason-hood, because there also inferential knowledge is experienced due to error of concomitance, otherwise; "this has smoke because of fire" also
23. न च तत् लक्ष्यमेव – Nor the valid inference, having concomitance and occurrence in subject, both are conditions of to be a valid reason and not only one of them. Otherwise fire also exists in the mountain which has smoke, therefore; 'this has smoke because it has fire,' this also would be valid inference.
