________________
.: 256 ::
Jinabhadra Gaņi's [ The fourth किन्तु परभागदर्शनम् , यथा क ? इति भवतः सर्वासद्वादिनो व्यतिरेकः क्वचिदपि न सिध्यति, अतोऽहेतुरेवायमिति ॥१९६-१९७ (१७४४-१७४५)।।
D. C.-Non-existence of each and every object could not be proved by virtue of the non-apprehension of rear parts. The rear portions of transparent objects like crystal and mica are apprehended. Existence of those objects has therefore undoubtedly been established. Consequently, non-apprehension of all objects can never be proved by means of the hetu that rear portions are not seen.
Here, again, if you contend that sphatika etc. also do not exist, your argument that rear portion is not seen will fail and hence be invalid, as the rear portions of those objects are clearly apprehended. In spite of this faulty argument, if you attempt to establish s'ünyatā by means of a widely applicable statement that “Nothing could be proved to exist as nothing is perceived” then also, the previous hetu that rear part could not be seen, would be violated. Secondly, since village, town, river, sea, ghata, pata etc. are directly apprehensible, and hence the hetu will be evidently invalid in that way also.
The opponent may contend again, that a reason which is not applicable to all the instances on the same side can be called a logical reason if it is absolutely inapplicable to the opposite side. e. g., s'abda is a-nitya because it is not produced without effort. But this does not mean that all a-nitya objects could not be produced without effort. Because objects like lightning, cloud etc. though. produced without effort are a-nitya. Similarly, here also, rear parts of all the objects are not non-apprehensible but as the rear parts of several objects are not apprehensible, this hetu leads us to prove s'ünyata in them and that is why it is called a corrector logical reason!
But, that is not proper. O Vyakta ! In the hetu mentioned above, pervasion of difference is found Take, for example, the
