________________
the व्याप्य. "नारब्धव्यमिदं प्रयोजनरहित्वात् उन्मत्तवाक्यवत् " of the Vrtti is a
case of व्यापकानुपलब्धि (प्रयोजनाभाव ) involving व्याप्याभाव ( आरभ्मणाभाव ). P. 39b नारब्धव्यमिदम् ete-there are two more हेतुs pointing to the same con
clusion: निरभिधेयत्व and असंबद्धत्व. काकानां हि दन्ता एव न विद्यन्ते-~see supra.
Here given as an example of निरभिधेयत्व. " काकानां हि दन्ता एव न विद्यन्ते," (Paijka). In the absence of the initial sloka-- साधनं दूषणं चैव "-which is really the fundamental sloka, the whole treatment of पक्ष, हेतु, दृष्टान्त and their आभास: would have been lost in the air (निरभिधेय ). Moreover, it would have been irrelevant
(असंबद्ध ). न्या. प्र. तत्र पक्षादिवचनानि साधनम्---'साधन' the first word in the fundamental P. 11. 4. verse defined. Mark: not the हेतु alone, but the whole body
of Inference consisting of the statement of पक्ष, हेतु and दृष्टान्त
is here called 'साधन', न्या. प्र. वृ. P.10 1. 6. साधनम्--Explained in three ways
(१) साध्यतेऽनेनेति साधनम् (करणे). (२) सिद्धिः साधनम् (भावे ).
(३) साधयतीति साधनम् ( कतरे ). 1. 8. विषयश्चास्य etc.-What is the विषय of the साधन, that is to say, what is
it that it proves ? Answer: धर्मविशिष्टो धर्मी. Not the धर्म alone, e.g. वह्नि, nor the धर्मिन् alone e.g. पर्वत, but धर्मविशिष्ट-धर्मिन् 8.9.
वह्निविशिष्ट पर्वत. ll. 8-9. साधनदोषोद्भावनानि दूषणानि. दूषणम-(१) दूष्यतेऽनेनेति दूषणम् (२) दृषयतीति दूषणम् .
Since, as stated above, the साधन consists of पक्ष, हेतु and दृष्टान्त, the
दूषणs may be accordingly (१) पक्षदूषण, (२) हेतुदूषण and (३) घ्यन्तदूषण. 1. 8. विषयाश्चास्य &c.--The दूषण or attack is directed againet साधनाभास and
not साधन; for, साधन cannot be hurt if it is a real साधन ic.capable
of proving what it undertakes to prove. 1. 11. ननु वक्ष्यति &c. If as you say the target of सूषण is साधनाभास and not
साधन, how is it that the author Bays “ साधनदोषोद्भावनानि दूषणानि" (न्या. प्र. p.81.3)? Answer : By साधन in that passage is meant not the art that proves, buf the arta that claims to provethus, that which the other party has put forward as 'साधन',
