________________
चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
अव्याप्तितादवस्थ्यमत उक्तं साध्ये चेति । तथा च सपक्षो महानसादिर्न सकलसाध्याभाववान् इति अदोषः ।
-
८९
(जा. १२) प्राञ्चस्तु व्यभिचारिणि अतिव्याप्तिवारणार्थं साध्याभाववति यावत्त्वविशेषणे दत्त एव साध्ये यावत्त्वविशेषणमव्याप्तिवारकतया सार्थकं भवति, अतः साध्याभाववत्येव साकल्यं प्राक् प्रयोजयति साकल्यमित्यादिना इत्येवमवधारयन्ति तन्मन्दं, साध्याभाववति साकल्यानुक्तावतिव्याप्तिवारकतया एव साध्ये साकल्यविशेषणस्य प्रथमतः सार्थकत्वसम्भवात् । अन्यथा गगनावृत्तिधर्मवान्
that which has the absence of that which is to be established, does not exist the reason smoke etc. therefore it is said "that which is to be established," thus the definite subject kitchen etc. is not that which has the absence of all that which is to be estalished, therefore there is no fault.
(J.12) Old logicians hold that-when to avoid the fault of too wide application in devious reason the qualifier 'all' is connected with that which has the absence of that which is to be established, only then the qualifier ‘all' in that which is to be established is fruitfull as a remover of the fault of too narrow application. Therefore 'all' is connected with that which has the absence of that which is to be established in first by the expression ‘all.’ This is not correct, because there is a possibility of fruitfullness of the qualifier ‘all' with that which is to be established, in first, by removing the fault of too wide application. Otherwise there will be fault of too wide application in the inference; 'this has the thing which dose not abide in ether, because of substance
