________________
४४
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
(३०) नव्यास्तु साध्यवद्भिन्ने साध्याभावः साध्यवद्भिन्नसाध्याभावः तद्वदवृत्तित्वमिति सप्तमीतत्पुरुषोत्तरं मतुप्प्रत्ययः । तथा च साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तिर्यः साध्याभावस्तद्वदवृत्तित्वमित्यर्थः । एवञ्च साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तीत्यनुक्तौ संयोगी द्रव्यत्वादित्यादावव्याप्तिः । संयोगाभाववति द्रव्ये द्रव्यत्वस्य वृत्तेः, तदुपादाने च संयोगवद्भिन्नवृत्तिः संयोगाभावो गुणादिवृत्तिः संयोगाभाव एव अधिकरणभेदेन अभावभेदात् तद्वदवृत्तित्वान्नाव्याप्तिः ।
(30) New logicians say-the absence of that which is to be established in that which is different from that which has that which to be established is meant by the absence of that which is to be established, is in that which is other than that which has sādhya and non existence in that. This is suffix matup after the compound seventh case tatpurusa. Therefore 'the non-existence in that which has the absence of that which is to be established which (absence) exists in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established' is the meaning. In this way if the 'existent in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established', is not said there will be the fault of too narrow application in the inference; 'this has conjunction because this has substanceness.' This is because substance-ness exists in the substance which has the absence of that which is to be established that is conjunetion when that is said the absence of the conjunction which exists in quality is the absence of conjunction which exists in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established, because absence is different due to difference in the substratum and because it does not exists in that, therefore there is no fault of too narrow application.
