________________
706
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XVIII.
to put forth such expressions also ; on the ground that in the absence of these also, it is not possible to propound an Inference all on a sudden.
Useless' because the Probandum would become cognised even without it. For instance, if the inference is stated simply as whatever is producer is non-eternal--and Sound is produced, the cognition comes about that
Sound is non-eternal', even without the statement of the Proposition(1431-1433)
Question :-"How then can there be any distinction made regarding the Sapaksa' (That in which the Probandum is known to be present) and so iorth?"
This is the question stated in the following) -
TEXT (1434). How THEN CAN THERE BE ANY DISTINCTION MADE REGARDING THE * Sa paksa' (THAT WHEREIN THE PROBANDUM IS KNOWN TO EXIST ') AND SO FORTH, WHEN THE SUBJECT (MINOR TERM) 18 NOT ACTCALLY STATED ? Tur 'THREE-FEATURES ALSO CANNOT BE THER; AS THAT TOO IS DEPEN. DENT UPON THAT "-IF THIS IS URGED THEN THE ANSWER IS AS GIVEN IN THE
FOLLOWING Text].
COMMENTARY. "That is to say, 'Sapaksa' is the name given to that object which is similar to the Minor Term, in the sense that what is gought to be proved (the Probandum) is present in it and that where there is no such similarity is called the asa paksa' or 'Vipaksa'). If the Proposition were not stated, then the three features' (of the Probane), which is dependent upon that,i.e. upon that which is the substratum of the Sapaka -would not be there, and the entire fabric (of Inference) would become shattered to pieces." (1434)
The answer to the above is as follows:
TEXT (1435). IN THE MERE STATEMENT OF THE PROOF (INFERENTIAL), THERE IS NO DISTINCTION MADE REGARDING THE 'Sapaksa' AND THE REST. IT IS ONLY IN A SCIENTIFIC TREATISE, THAT THEY ARE DISTINGUISHED AND DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING) THE USAGE.
-(1435) COMMENTARY,
That is to say, even a barbarian who knows nothing of the distinction of Sapalsa etc., when it is stated to him that where there is smoke, there is
