2026-04-25 02:58:10 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
३२
प्रमाणान्तरेण निश्चितः स बाधितः । यथा वन्हि-
रनुष्णो द्रव्यत्वादिति । अत्रानुष्णत्वं साध्यं तद-
भाव उष्णत्वं स्पार्शनप्रत्यक्षेण गृह्यत इति बा-
धितत्वम् ॥ ४६ ॥
1515
46. The five, that merely present the appearance of a reason, are:-
That which goes astray; That which would prove the contradictory;
That where there is an equally strong argument on the other side;
the Unreal; and the Futile. The alleged reason which goes astray,
is that which has not just the one conclusion. It is of three kinds;-
What would prove two much; What belongs to none besides the in-
dividual; and the Non-exclusive. The fallacy falls under the first
head, when that which is alleged as the proof may be present whilst
that which is to be proved is absent; as for instance, if one should
say, 'The mountain is fiery, because it is an object of right knowledge,'
[the reason assigned would be liable to this objection] because the
being an object that may be rightly known is predicable also of a
lake, which is characterised by the absence of fire. That (pretended
token) which belongs neither to any similar instance nor to any one
dissimilar, is one devoid of community. As, when one says 'Sound
is eternal, for it has the nature of sound.' Now the nature of sound
belongs to sound alone, and to nothing else, whether eternal or un-
eternal. The pretended argument, which can bring an example
neither in support nor in opposition, is Non-exclusive. For example,
should one say, 'Everything is non-eternal because it is cognizable,'
there would be no example to cite, because 'every thing' (leaving
nothing over) is the subject of the conclusion. A reason proving the
reverse, is that which invariably attends the absence of what is to be
proved. For example-suppose one should say, 'sound is eternal be-
cause it is created.' (We should reject his argument at once, because
the fact of having been created implies non-eternity-the negation of
being eternal). A counter-balanced reason is that along with which
there exists another reason, which (equally well) establishes the
non-existence of what is to be proved. As if one should argue,
'Sound is eternal, because, it is andible, as the nature of sound is
(by both parties admitted to be),' (it might be argued, with equal
force on the other side, that) 'sound is non-eternal, because it is a
प्रमाणान्तरेण निश्चितः स बाधितः । यथा वन्हि-
रनुष्णो द्रव्यत्वादिति । अत्रानुष्णत्वं साध्यं तद-
भाव उष्णत्वं स्पार्शनप्रत्यक्षेण गृह्यत इति बा-
धितत्वम् ॥ ४६ ॥
1515
46. The five, that merely present the appearance of a reason, are:-
That which goes astray; That which would prove the contradictory;
That where there is an equally strong argument on the other side;
the Unreal; and the Futile. The alleged reason which goes astray,
is that which has not just the one conclusion. It is of three kinds;-
What would prove two much; What belongs to none besides the in-
dividual; and the Non-exclusive. The fallacy falls under the first
head, when that which is alleged as the proof may be present whilst
that which is to be proved is absent; as for instance, if one should
say, 'The mountain is fiery, because it is an object of right knowledge,'
[the reason assigned would be liable to this objection] because the
being an object that may be rightly known is predicable also of a
lake, which is characterised by the absence of fire. That (pretended
token) which belongs neither to any similar instance nor to any one
dissimilar, is one devoid of community. As, when one says 'Sound
is eternal, for it has the nature of sound.' Now the nature of sound
belongs to sound alone, and to nothing else, whether eternal or un-
eternal. The pretended argument, which can bring an example
neither in support nor in opposition, is Non-exclusive. For example,
should one say, 'Everything is non-eternal because it is cognizable,'
there would be no example to cite, because 'every thing' (leaving
nothing over) is the subject of the conclusion. A reason proving the
reverse, is that which invariably attends the absence of what is to be
proved. For example-suppose one should say, 'sound is eternal be-
cause it is created.' (We should reject his argument at once, because
the fact of having been created implies non-eternity-the negation of
being eternal). A counter-balanced reason is that along with which
there exists another reason, which (equally well) establishes the
non-existence of what is to be proved. As if one should argue,
'Sound is eternal, because, it is andible, as the nature of sound is
(by both parties admitted to be),' (it might be argued, with equal
force on the other side, that) 'sound is non-eternal, because it is a