________________
554
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XVI.
The above is an example of the Inference where the Probans is the effect of the Probandum. The following texts cite an example of the Probans in the form of the nature of things -
TEXTS (1055-1056).
THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALITY THAT IS DIFFERENTIATED FROM MAN's HORNS AND OTHER NON-EXISTENT THINGS IS ALSO DIFFERENTIATED FROM PERMANENT THINGS, -JUST AS THE COGNITION, THE LAMP-TLAME, ETO. ARE THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALITY or SOUND, ETC. IS NOT A non-existent thing.-IN TRIS WAY THERE CAN BE THN ASSERTION OF CONCOMITANCE THROUGH DIFFERENCES AS
INDICATED.-(1055-1056)
COMMENTARY.
That Specific Individuality which is differentiated from the non-existent, because it is not non-existent,-is also differentiated from Permanent Things, -as we find in the case of Cognition, Lamp-flame and such things.
The necessary concomitance can be asserted in this way, without touching upon any particulars; and there would be nothing incongruous in this.
The concomitance shown here is in regard to the Probans because it exists' (the inference being in the form- The Specific Individuality of Sounds, etc. is differentiated from Permanent Things, because it exists,-like Cognition, Lamp-flame, etc. ').-(1055-1056)
Question: "If there is concomitance with the Specific Individuality only, then how is there Inference in regard to things partaking of the nature of the Universal ?"
Anstoer
TEXT (1057).
THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALITY ITSELF, WHEN ITS DISTINCTION IS NOT MEANT TO BE EMPHASISED, HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS CONSTITUTING THE UNIVERSAL (OR COMMONALTY) :NOTHING ELSE; AS NOTHING ELSE IS
ACCEPTABLE.-(1057).
COMMENTARY That same Specific Individuality, when its distinctive features are not meant to be eraphasised, --constitutes the Commonalty'; as has been already explained.
