________________
31
exists, therefore the absence of fire is not the absence which exists in all substrata of the absence of smoke. We can take there the absence of water etc., the counter-positive-ness of that absence does not exists in fire, hence the definition is not applied.
Here the question arises, in this definition which is qualified by 'All the absence of sādhya or the substratum of absence of sādhya ? According to Raghunātha ‘All'is qualifier of both 'absence of sādhya and the substratum of absence of sādhya,' while Mathurānātha says 'Allis qualifier of the substratum of absence of sādhya.'
If the expression is not used there would be a fault of over extension, in the inference. This has smoke because of fire,' then there is absence of fire in the substratum of the absence of sādhya viz. water etc. counter-positive-ness of which exists in fire. When ‘All is used, there would not be fault of over extension. Because of in all substrata of the absence of sādhya (smoke) the absence of fire dose not exist, in the locus of absence of smoke 'hot-iron-ball, fire exists.
If ‘All is considered as the qualifier of the absence of sādhya, there would be a fault of impossibility, absence of fire which dose not occurred in that water and the absence of fire which dose not exist in this lake etc. also are included in all absences of sādhya, one substratum of all there absences of sādhya in not established, the absence of non-occupant of that lake exists only in that lake not in all substrata of absence of sādhya. Therefore ‘All should be understood as qualifier of substratum of absence of sādhya.
According to Raghunātha there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference 'this has that colour because of that test. Here all substrata of sādhya is not established, sādhya that
