________________
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
पृथिवीत्वाभावाधिकरणे जलादौ यावदन्तर्गते निरवच्छिन्नवृत्तिमानभावो न कपिसंयोगाभावः किन्तु घटत्वाद्यभाव एव तत्प्रतियोगित्वस्य हेतावसत्त्वान्नातिव्याप्तिः ।
(४६) न चैवमन्योन्याभावस्य व्याप्यवृत्तितानियमनये द्रव्यत्वाभाववान् संयोगवद्भिन्नत्वादित्यादेरपि सद्हेतुततया तत्राव्याप्तिः संयोगवद्भिन्नत्वाभावस्य संयोगरूपस्य निरवच्छिन्नवृत्तेरप्रसिद्धेरिति वाच्यम् । अन्योन्याभावस्य व्याप्यवृत्तितानियमनयेऽन्योन्याभावस्य अभावो न प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकस्वरूपः, किन्त्वतिरिक्तो व्याप्यवृत्तिः । अन्यथा३८
water etc., which is included in all, the substratum of the absence of earth-ness, but the absence of jar etc. only is as such, and the counter-positive-ness of that absence does not abide in the reason.37 Therefore there is no fault of too wide application.
(46) It also should not be said that-in this way there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference, “this has the absence of substance-ness because this is different from that which has the conjunction”. This is also a valid reason according to them who believe that mutual absence is non-partial existent, because the absence of the difference from that which has the conjunction which (absence) is identical with conjunction has no non-determined existence. This is because in the opinion of the scholars who accept mutual absence has non partial existence, the absence of mutual absence is not identical with the determinant of counter-positive-ness but it is a different category, and non-partial existent. Other wise38 there would
37. हेतावसत्त्वात-Because it does not exists in the reason 38. (अन्यथा) Otherwise-The absence of mutual absence. Logicians who
