________________
688
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER XVILI.
TEXTS (1386-1388).
IF THE PROPOSED DEFINITION OF THE PROBANS IS MEANT TO BE ONE
THAT IS FOUND IN THE MINOR TERM ONLY,-TREN THAT SAME MEANS OF COGNITION WHICH HAS MADE THE PROBANS KNOWX WOULD MARE KNOWN THE PROBANDUM ALSO. IF THE PROBANDUM DOES NOT BEOOME KNOWN, THEN THE PROBANS ALSO CANNOT BECOME KNOWN. THUS THE PROBANS WOULD BE USELESS, THE PROBANDUM HAVING BECONE KNOWN BY OTHER MEANS.THERE WOULD BE THE INCONGRUITY OF MUTUAL INTERDEPENDENCE' ALSO, IF THE DEFINITE COGNITION OF THE PROBANDUM FOLLOWED FROM THE PROBANS; AND BETWEEN THESE TWO, THE COGNITION OF ONE WOULD BE DEPENDENT UPON THE COGNITION OF THE OTHER.-(1386-1388)
COMMENTARY.
The Probans may be defined as being inseparable from the Probandum in the Minor Term only.--as asserted in the following words-" The character of the Probans is held by others to exist in the Instance and to be not seen apart from the Probandum ; in my opinion however, it is that which does not exist in the Minor Term apart from the Probandum; the followers of Shabara derive this knowledge from Presumption, and the followers of Bhikou, from Inference ; for us, Inference is something totally different, like Narasimha (having a dual character)".
[In this passage] – Dharmime-In the Minor term ;-ie. that in which the existence of the Probandum is sought to be proved Amună i.e. what is sought to be proved. That which is incapable of existing in the Minor Term apart from the Probandum ; this is meant to be the definition of Probans).
If such be the definition of the Probans, then that same Means of Cognition by which the Probans would be known as inseparable from the Probandum, as existent in the object where the Probandum is sought to be proved, that same Means of Cognition would have made known the Probandum also (as present in the Minor Term) ;- so that the Probans would be entirely useless.
If the Probandum is not known, then the Probans also is not known; because the Probans has been defined as what is present in the Minor Term inseparably from the Probandum; and this inseparability from the Probandum cannot be known if the Probandum is not known; so that the Probandum would remain unknown', because the cognition of inseparability depends upon the Cognition of both.
It might be urged that, "The Probans may be known by other means of cognition";then what is the use of the Probans, the Probandum having become known already?
Further, if the definite cognition of the Probandum were dependent upon the Probans, then there would be the incongruity of mutual interdependence.
