________________
30
the locus of sādhya.' For example in the inference 'the hill has fire because of smoke. Sādhya is fire. The mutual absence of sādhyavān (FT2016) is the mutual absence of the locus of fire which exists in water etc. there is occurrence of fish etc. and the absence of that occurrence exists in the smoke. In this way the definition is applied. While in the invalid inference such as 'the hill has smoke because it has fire this definition is not applied. The mutual absence of the locus of smoke exists in the hot-iron-ball where fire exists therefore there is no absence of occurrence in the reason fire. Therefore it is invalid reason.
Ācārya Raghunātha has pointed out the rejection of this definition by showing the fault of too narrow application in all valid reasons because the reason exists in the example which is different from subject (paksa 47). Therefore there is no absence of occurrence in the reason, hence the fourth definition was introduced. If to avoid this fault by the expression 'the mutual absence of the locus of sādhya' the mutual absence counterpositive-ness of which is determined by the locus-ness of sādhya, means the mutual absence of all locus of sādhya, there would be repeatition of fifth definition.
4. Sakala-sādhyābhāvavannisthābhāvā-pratiyogitvam (सकलसाध्याभाववन्निष्ठाभावाप्रतियोगित्वम्)
Absence of counter-positive-ness of the absence which exists in all substrata of the absence of sādhya, is the meaning. In the inference 'the hill has fire because it has smoke in all substrata of fire, the absence of smoke exists, therefore the counter-positive-ness of that absence exists in smoke, hence the definition is applied. But there is no absence of fire in all substrata of smoke therefore in invalid inference 'this has smoke because it has fire' the definition is not applied. In the substratum of the absence of smoke viz. hot-iron-ball the fire
