2026-04-25 02:58:09 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
क्षेत्र वधूमस्तत्र पान्हे रिति हेतु व्यापक साध्य सामान
धिकरण्यं अन्वयव्याप
पचपन्ति नास्तिला नास्तीति साध्याभावव्यापक
भूताभावप्रतियोगित्वं व्यतिरेक प्यासि
लिङ्गं विभजते । लिङ्गमिति ॥ अन्वयव्यतिरेकि लक्षयति । अ-
न्वयेति । हेतुसाध्ययोर्व्याप्तिरन्वयः । तदद्भावयोर्व्यतिरेकव्याप्तिः॥
केवलान्वयिनो लक्षणमाह । अन्वयेति । केवलान्वयिसाध्यकं के-
वलान्वयि । अत्यन्ताभावाप्रतियोगित्वं केवलान्वयित्वम् । ईश्वरप्र-
माविषयत्वं सर्वपदाभिधेयत्वं च सर्वत्रास्तीति व्यतिरेकाभावः ॥ व्य-
तिरेकिण उदाहरति । ष्टथिवीति ॥ नन्वितरभेदः प्रसिद्धो वा न वा ।
आद्ये यत्र प्रसिद्धस्तत्र हेतुसच्वेन्वयित्वम् । असत्त्वसाधारण्यम् ।
द्वितीये साध्यज्ञानाभावात्कथं तद्विशिष्टानुमितिः । विशेषणज्ञाना-
भावे विशिष्टज्ञानानुदयात् । प्रतियोगिज्ञानाभावात् । व्यतिरेकव्या-
प्ति ज्ञानमपि न स्यादिति चेन्न । जलादि त्रयोदशान्योन्याभावानां
त्रयोदशसु प्रत्येकं प्रसिद्धानां मेलनं ष्टथिव्यां साध्यते । त्रयोदश-
त्वावच्छिन्नसाध्यस्यैकाधिकरणवृत्तित्वाभावात् । नान्वयित्वासाधार-
ये प्रत्येकाधिकरणप्रसिद्ध्या साध्यविशिष्टानुमितिर्व्यतिरेकव्या-
प्तिनिरूपणं चेति ॥
eiation (with the thing which it betokens) and its absence (when the
thing it betokens is absent) as, for example, 'smokiness' when ' fire' is
to be proved. When it is said, 'where there is smoke there is fire,
as on a culinary hearth,' we have a case of concomitant presence.
When it is said, ' where fire is not, there smoke also is not, as in a
great deep lake,' we have a case of concomitant absence. The second
is that token which has no negative instanee, as when it is said 'the
jar is nameable because it is cognizable, as cloth is,' there is no instance
of nameableness or of cognizableness being present where the other
is absent, because everything (that we can be conversant about)
is both cognizable and nameable. The third is that token in regard
to which we can reason only. from its invariable absence. For
example:-
(1) Earth is different from these (other elements );
(2) Because it is odorous ;
13
(3) Nothing that is not different from these is odorous;—as
water ;
(4) But this is not so ;
(5) Therefore it is different from the other elements..
But if [ in the third member of the argument] we had argued [affi-
matively ] that what possesses odour is different from the other ele-
ments,' we should have had no example to cite in confirmation, seeing
that of earth alone can that property be asserted.'
धिकरण्यं अन्वयव्याप
पचपन्ति नास्तिला नास्तीति साध्याभावव्यापक
भूताभावप्रतियोगित्वं व्यतिरेक प्यासि
लिङ्गं विभजते । लिङ्गमिति ॥ अन्वयव्यतिरेकि लक्षयति । अ-
न्वयेति । हेतुसाध्ययोर्व्याप्तिरन्वयः । तदद्भावयोर्व्यतिरेकव्याप्तिः॥
केवलान्वयिनो लक्षणमाह । अन्वयेति । केवलान्वयिसाध्यकं के-
वलान्वयि । अत्यन्ताभावाप्रतियोगित्वं केवलान्वयित्वम् । ईश्वरप्र-
माविषयत्वं सर्वपदाभिधेयत्वं च सर्वत्रास्तीति व्यतिरेकाभावः ॥ व्य-
तिरेकिण उदाहरति । ष्टथिवीति ॥ नन्वितरभेदः प्रसिद्धो वा न वा ।
आद्ये यत्र प्रसिद्धस्तत्र हेतुसच्वेन्वयित्वम् । असत्त्वसाधारण्यम् ।
द्वितीये साध्यज्ञानाभावात्कथं तद्विशिष्टानुमितिः । विशेषणज्ञाना-
भावे विशिष्टज्ञानानुदयात् । प्रतियोगिज्ञानाभावात् । व्यतिरेकव्या-
प्ति ज्ञानमपि न स्यादिति चेन्न । जलादि त्रयोदशान्योन्याभावानां
त्रयोदशसु प्रत्येकं प्रसिद्धानां मेलनं ष्टथिव्यां साध्यते । त्रयोदश-
त्वावच्छिन्नसाध्यस्यैकाधिकरणवृत्तित्वाभावात् । नान्वयित्वासाधार-
ये प्रत्येकाधिकरणप्रसिद्ध्या साध्यविशिष्टानुमितिर्व्यतिरेकव्या-
प्तिनिरूपणं चेति ॥
eiation (with the thing which it betokens) and its absence (when the
thing it betokens is absent) as, for example, 'smokiness' when ' fire' is
to be proved. When it is said, 'where there is smoke there is fire,
as on a culinary hearth,' we have a case of concomitant presence.
When it is said, ' where fire is not, there smoke also is not, as in a
great deep lake,' we have a case of concomitant absence. The second
is that token which has no negative instanee, as when it is said 'the
jar is nameable because it is cognizable, as cloth is,' there is no instance
of nameableness or of cognizableness being present where the other
is absent, because everything (that we can be conversant about)
is both cognizable and nameable. The third is that token in regard
to which we can reason only. from its invariable absence. For
example:-
(1) Earth is different from these (other elements );
(2) Because it is odorous ;
13
(3) Nothing that is not different from these is odorous;—as
water ;
(4) But this is not so ;
(5) Therefore it is different from the other elements..
But if [ in the third member of the argument] we had argued [affi-
matively ] that what possesses odour is different from the other ele-
ments,' we should have had no example to cite in confirmation, seeing
that of earth alone can that property be asserted.'