2026-04-25 02:58:10 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
३३
एवं सद्धेतुं निरूप्यासद्धेतुं निरूपयति । सव्यभिचारेति । अनु-
मितिप्रतिबन्धका यथार्थज्ञानविषयत्वं हेत्वाभासत्वम् ॥ सव्यभिचारं
product, as a jar is. An unreal reason is threefold-Where there is
not established the existence of any such locality as that where the
property is alleged to reside; Where the nature alleged does not
really reside in the subject; and Where the alleged invariableness of
concomitancy is not real. (As an example of), the fallacy of non-
existent locality, (suppose that one argues), 'The sky-lotus is fra-
grant, because the nature of a lotus resides in it, as in the lotuses of
the lake' here the sky-lotus is (alleged as) the locality (of the
nature of a lotus,) and in fact it [the sky-lotus] does not
exist. As (an example of) an argument where the nature does not
really exist in the subject (suppose one were to argue ), 'Sound is a
quality, because it is visible'-here (every one would perceive at once,
that) visibility does not reside in sound, for sound is recognised by
the hearing (not by vision). A reason, when there is an indispen-
sable condition, is faulty as regards comprehensiveness. Such an
uch an
indispensable condition is what always attends property to be esta-
blished, but does not always attend what is brought forward in
proof. Invariable attendance on the property to be established consists
in the not being the counterentity of the absolute non-existence, which
has the same location as that which is to be proved. Non-invariable
attendance on what is brought forward in proof consists in the being
the counterentity of the non-existence which has what is brought
forward in proof. (Suppose it to be argued that), 'The mountain
must smoke, because it is fiery'-in this case the contact of wet
fuel is an indispensable condition. For 'wherever there is smoke,
there is the conjunction of wet fuel'-so that we have here invariable
attendance on what is to be proved. But it is not true that wher-
ever there is fire, there there is conjunction of wet fuel'-for there is
no conjunction of wet fuel in the case of an (ignited) iron ball-so we
have here non-invariable attendance on the proof. As there is thus its
invariable attendance on what is to be proved, the contact of wet
fuel is an indispensable condition for the sufficiency of the reason
alleged. .As it would require this additional condition (in order to
prove that smoke must be present), ficriness (in the argument before
us) is faulty as regards comprehensiveness. An argument is futile
when the reverse of what it seeks to prove is established for certain
by another proof. For example (it may be argued that), 'Fire is cold,.
एवं सद्धेतुं निरूप्यासद्धेतुं निरूपयति । सव्यभिचारेति । अनु-
मितिप्रतिबन्धका यथार्थज्ञानविषयत्वं हेत्वाभासत्वम् ॥ सव्यभिचारं
product, as a jar is. An unreal reason is threefold-Where there is
not established the existence of any such locality as that where the
property is alleged to reside; Where the nature alleged does not
really reside in the subject; and Where the alleged invariableness of
concomitancy is not real. (As an example of), the fallacy of non-
existent locality, (suppose that one argues), 'The sky-lotus is fra-
grant, because the nature of a lotus resides in it, as in the lotuses of
the lake' here the sky-lotus is (alleged as) the locality (of the
nature of a lotus,) and in fact it [the sky-lotus] does not
exist. As (an example of) an argument where the nature does not
really exist in the subject (suppose one were to argue ), 'Sound is a
quality, because it is visible'-here (every one would perceive at once,
that) visibility does not reside in sound, for sound is recognised by
the hearing (not by vision). A reason, when there is an indispen-
sable condition, is faulty as regards comprehensiveness. Such an
uch an
indispensable condition is what always attends property to be esta-
blished, but does not always attend what is brought forward in
proof. Invariable attendance on the property to be established consists
in the not being the counterentity of the absolute non-existence, which
has the same location as that which is to be proved. Non-invariable
attendance on what is brought forward in proof consists in the being
the counterentity of the non-existence which has what is brought
forward in proof. (Suppose it to be argued that), 'The mountain
must smoke, because it is fiery'-in this case the contact of wet
fuel is an indispensable condition. For 'wherever there is smoke,
there is the conjunction of wet fuel'-so that we have here invariable
attendance on what is to be proved. But it is not true that wher-
ever there is fire, there there is conjunction of wet fuel'-for there is
no conjunction of wet fuel in the case of an (ignited) iron ball-so we
have here non-invariable attendance on the proof. As there is thus its
invariable attendance on what is to be proved, the contact of wet
fuel is an indispensable condition for the sufficiency of the reason
alleged. .As it would require this additional condition (in order to
prove that smoke must be present), ficriness (in the argument before
us) is faulty as regards comprehensiveness. An argument is futile
when the reverse of what it seeks to prove is established for certain
by another proof. For example (it may be argued that), 'Fire is cold,.