________________
procese knew no formulation of a general rule." His argument in sopport of it that "the term 'example'is only with great difficulty to be reconciled with a general proposition " loses all its force when we remember that the Sanskrit original of 'example' is 'ezint,' which far from labouring under "the great difficulty" to be reconciled with a general proposition mean nothing less than an example in which the general proposition is obserreri (eg: 7-a: Biegiala'--see supra ). With this fact and the whole evidence of the preceding paragraph before us, we cannot accept Mr. Keith's further argument that the fourth and fifth members'agi a197' (='Thus is this') and 'JAATETI' (= Therefore, thus is it.) show reference to the example, Mr. Keith's next remark that "the sunming up in the application is expressly said by Gautama to be dependent on the example" is based upon a misunderstanding of the word 'उदाहरण' of the sutra 'उदाहरणापेक्षस्तथेत्युपसंहारी a già al REFTCA7: I. 1. 38.' which means much more than a bare example; it means the 'example' as illustrative of a general principle. Vātsyāyana says in his gloss on JCIETTET, FORTFAR A ari gi', and as noted above he makes the point absolutely clear at the end of his commentary on the next sâtre where he says: "cateca Tay YAT: Fluarganya दृष्टान्तस्थे गृह्यमाणे साधनभूतस्य धर्मस्य हेतुत्वेनोपादानं न साधर्म्यमात्रस्य न वैधय॑मात्रस्य वा."
Mr. Keith's next argument based on the words ta!' and '29' fails equally wide of the mark. The fact that the word 2791 is used instead of a is significant: it shows that the inference is not based on mere likeness of the subject with the example, but on the manner in which the example bebaves. For, 2 is a pronominal adverb connoting manner and not mere likeness, unlike a which may connote only likeness with the standard of comparison. It thus implies a statement of behaviour, that is to say, it is not a term but a proposition of which it introduces an illustration and that proposition in the present case is the universal यो यो धुमवान् स स af 117 ( 921 HETAR: ) or 2497ata aigail ( 741 RE1%8: ) which is more than an argument by analogy, such as पर्वतो महानस इव वह्निमान् or पर्वतो महानस इव धूमवान् aigais! Mr. Keith says in a footnote that the fourth member which is now “241 4176" was "originally presumably tathāyam ( ayrga ).” This however, is begging the question: "7" is there, and it means that the example is one and this is another, both illustrating the same general rule. Had there been no general rule, one would have said 2 Agiaa: 2217; but precisely because
