________________
XXVIII) Concomitance (Vyāpti)
197 without fire, it would have been without smoke; but it is not so". Being such a negative inference, it stands as an independent inference, and, as it may also be used to strengthen a positive inference, it may also be considered in that case an additional support to it (pramāṇānām anugrāhaka), just as what is known by perception may again be strengthened by inference. Its function in removing doubts in other cases remains just as it has been shown before; but everywhere the root principle involved in it is necessary supposition rendering other alternatives impossible (anyathānupapatti), which is the principle also in inference?.
Concomitance (Vyāpti). The word vyāpti in Sanskrit is a noun formed from the root vyāp, “to pervade”. The consequence (e.g., fire) pervades all cases of smoke, i.e., the circle of the consequence is not smaller than the circle of smoke and encloses it; consequence is therefore called the pervader (vyāpaka) and the reason (e.g. smoke) as the object of this action of pervading is called the pervaded (vyāpya). Thus in the case of smoke and fire there is an unfailing relation (avyabhicāritāsambandha) between them and the former is called vyāpya and the latter vyāpaka. This unfailing relation may however be of four kinds. First, the two circles might coincide (samavịtti), in which case the reason may be treated as consequence and inferred from the consequence treated as reason and vice versa. Thus one may argue both ways: it is sinful because it is prohibited in the Vedas and it is prohibited in the Vedas because it is sinful; here the two circles coincide. Secondly, when one circle is smaller than the other, as in the case of smoke and fire (nyūnādhika-vrtti); the circle of fire is larger than the circle of smoke and so one could infer smoke from fire, but not fire from smoke-vyāpya is smaller than the vyāpaka. Thirdly, where the two circles are mutually exclusive (paraspara-parihāreņaiva vartate), e.g., the class-concept cow (gotva) and the class-concept horse (aśvatva); where there is one, there is not the other. There is a relation of exclusion here, but not the relation of a vyāpya and vyāpaka. Fourthly, where the two are
1 sādhanānumānam vinaiva yadi niragnikah syāt tarhi nirdhūmah syāt tathā cāyam nirdhūma iti tarka-rūpānumānenaiva agnisiddheḥ. Ibid. p. go. ? säkşād anyathānupapatti-pramāpaka-tarka-visaya-kyta-virodhasya sattvāt.
Ibid. p. 89.
