________________
( 164 )
the three-featured probans, Even then it cannot lead to any valid and definite knowledge and conclusion. For there is Do avinabhava-sambandha (relation of invaribale con-comitance) between his son and his darkness. The climate and eating of vegetables by his mother during the pregnancy is real cause. Therefore, the Trairūpya is not a correct theory,
Sa syāmastasya putratvāddrastā Syāmā yathetare, Iti trilakxano heturna niscityai dravartate 209
Patrasvamin again pointed out that the one-featured probans has the requisite capacity of leading to valid knowledge. It has no external corroborative instances, either of similarity or of dissimimilarity, either in the form af statment or in the form of actual things, because all things have been included under the subject or paksa ( minor term ) Positive and Negative entities ( bhavabhaviitmakaera sarvapadārthasya paksikrlattvat ), and there is nothing apart from these. As regards the character of "being present in the Minor term", this is the anyathanupapannatva hetu and noting apart from the latter. Hence the probans here is one-featured.210
But the Buddhist philosophers do not accept this view and they try to criticise it. For instance, Santrakṣita questions whether Patrasvamin's definition of betu refers to the general position or to a particular subject on which knowledge is sought or to a particular instance, If the first alternative is accepted, then, what would be indicated, would be the existence of the probans in the object where the probandum is present; and it would not accomplish what is sought to be accomplished,211
If Pātrasvämin's definition of the Probans is that Anyathamipaparntva hetu is found in the Minor term (dharmi ) only, the same means of cognition, which has made the Probans known, would make know Probandum ( sūdhya ), also. Both these depend on each other. If the Probandum does not become known, the Probans also cannot become known. Thus. the probans would be useless, and the Probandum would
