Vyaptipanchakam

Author(s): Gangesa, Mathuranath, Raghunath, Jagdish
Publisher: Shrutbhuvan Sansodhan Kendra
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/009266/1

Page #1

Vyāpti-Pañcakam
(With Māthurī, Dīdhiti, Jāgadīšī)
- Translator Dr. Balirāma śukla (M.A. Ph.D.)

Page #2

Vyāpti-Pañcakam
(Five definitions of Vyāpti) With commentaries Mathurī by Mathurānātha Didhiti by Raghunatha Vritti on Didhiti by
Jāgadīśa
: Translation and Footnotes :
Dr. Balirāma Śukla (M.A. Ph.D.)
Shrutbhavan Research Centre

Page #3

Book
Author
Pune
:
Commentary:
Translator
Editor
Publisher
Ahmedabad
:
:
:
:
:
:
Type-setting:
Vyāpti-Pañcakam
Gangeśa
Mathurānātha, Raghunatha, Jāgadiśa Dr. Balirāma H. Śukla (M.A.,Ph.D.)
Muni Vairagyarati vijaygani
Shrutbhavan Research Centre, Pune
Distributors:~
Shrutbhavan Research Centre 47/48, Achal Farm,
Nr. Saccai mātā mandir, Kātraj-Pune-411046 Mo. 7744005728 (9.00 am to 5.00 pm.) www.shrutbhavan.org
Email: shrutbhavan@gmail.com
Shrutbhavan Research Center (Ahd. Branch) C/o. Umang Shah
B-424, Tirthraj Complex, Opp V.S. Hospital, Madalpur, Ahmedabad-380006, M. 9825128486 Virati Graphic
Phone: 08530520629, 7383183665

Page #4

Publisher's Note
'Shrutbhavan Research Center' as it is newly born in Katraj, Pune, works in various field of oriental research-projects. Also, encourages them who have keen interest in them. There are boundless research-works such as 1. Critically editing of rare texts which are not published till now, 2. Making dictionaries of narration of peculiar terms 3. Making dictionary of only terms used in widely existing Jaina literature that may cause to know where a word is used in what sense. 4. Re-editing of published-works with the help of handwritten manuscripts. and 5. Publication of such treaties which endorse our basic oriental research work.
Of them, this present work of English-translation by the late Dr. Balirām Śukla, is uncommon and an absolute-concurrence of them who are keenly interested in science of Navya Nyāya. This text namely Vyāptipañcakam being taught even in foreign, is really expensive in field of science of logic and language also. Such a more treaties are required to be translated into universal languages. Today's the late Dr. Balirām Śukla had truly assisted to us with the English-translation of Vyāpti-pañcakam along with Mathurī, Dīdhiti, Jāgadīśī we are ensured that publishing this work by us, will lead a hand to them who are desirous to know the system of philosophy viz. Navya Nyaya.
This book is published with the contribution of Juhu Scheme Jain Sangha Jñankhāta. Readers are requested to deposite fixed amount in Jñanadravya.
We, always Heartily thankful to Smt. Chandrakalaben Sundarlal Sheth Family, Mangrol (Gujarat), and Bhaishree (International Jain Foundation - Mumbai) for their dedication as well as truly become a pillar for our entire activities of Shrutbhavan Research Centre,Pune.
Bharat Shah (Hon. President)

Page #5

Editorial
As, someone Sanskrit poet said - "There are many of holly texts and various types of vidyās but time is more less than that.' Same like that happens with the late Dr. Balirām śukla, who finished the translation work of 1. Vyāpti-pañcaka-rahasya composed by Mathurānāth Tarkavāgisa 2. Dīdhiti composed by Raghunāth Siromani 3. Dīdhiti-vivritti composed by Jagdīša Tarkālankār, but could not evaluate them and breathe his last breath. Since, he was my teacher on Navya nyāya, he handed over that to me with the purpose of further finishing.
Even though, not having supreme perfection in morden language i.e. English, the present work is edited as it is with the assistance of Rajendra C. Jain [Research Scholar], Pankaj Jaje (Ph.D. Fellow, C.A.S.S. Uni, of Pune), and Shailesh Shinde (Research Trainee, Shrutbhavan Pune.)
Mistakes, occurred while editing the text, are being believed to get with their appropriate judgement. Date. 23-3-2011
- Vairāgayarati vijay

Page #6

: Contribution :
Juhu Scheme Jain Sangh
Pleasant Palace,
N. S. Road No.5,
JVPD Scheme, Mumbai
Shri Adinath Jain Shwetamber
Murtipujak Sangh,
Old Bhaji Bazar, Tajana Peth, Akola-444001 (Mah.)

Page #7

Index
Navya Nyāya Introduction: Vyāpti-Pañcaka
Vyāptipañcaka-rahasyam - प्रथमं लक्षणम् (First definition) - fecitei 800 (Second definition) – तृतीयं लक्षणम् (Third definition) - agef &014 (Fourth definition) – पञ्चमं लक्षणम् (Fifth definition)
74
76
Vyāpti-pamcaka-Dīdhiti-Jāgdiśī - प्रथमं लक्षणम् (First definition) - Facile 80 (Second definition) - aatei 48014 (Third definition) – चतुर्थं लक्षणम् (Fourth definition) – पञ्चमं लक्षणम् (Fifth definition)
84
85 100
117
122
126
Appendix-1 A Terminology (San.-Eng.) Appendix-1 B Terminology (Eng.-San.) Appendix-2 A Figures (Eng.) Appendix-2 B Figures (San.) Appendix-3 Brief Introduction of Dr. Balirām śukla Appendix-4 Bibliography
131
136 138

Page #8

NAVYA-NYĀYA
- Dr. Balirām śukla
The history of the Buddhist and Jaina logic is considered to be the history of the middle period of logic. The great conflict of the Brāhmana Nyāya and the śramana Nyāya resulted in the new trend of logic named 'Navya Nyāya.' (Hol Rp) The old Brahmaņa Nyāya as if was completed with Udayanācārya (उदयनाचार्य) and the further development took a new turn resulting in origination of Navya Nyāya. The vigorous flow of logic became speedy with “Tattvacintāmaņi' (arafaalhfut) written by Gangesa, (FT'TST) which not only influences all the orthodox systems of the Indian philosophy but left its traces also in all the later disciplines of learning in India.
After the conflict with the Jaina and Bauddha logic which took place around 1000 A.D. the Brāhmanic logicians decided to establish 16 categories of the Nyāya system. Among them the development of the category of pramāņa (941) is the most essential. Without the solid foundation of pramāṇa the establishment of prameyās (YÀT:) would not be possible. Hence Gangeśa, the author of Tattvacintāmaņi, established the Navya Nyāya philosophy as pramāņa-pradhāna-śāstra (4411912012) instead of concentrating on prameyās. From this time onwards Prācina Nyāya is known to be prameya-śāstra (TĀPa) and Navya Nyāya is known to be pramāņa-śāstra (441217).

Page #9

8
Navya Nyaya as pramāṇa-śāstra became pure logic. The main purpose of it was not to show the path of liberation but to establish reliable pramāņās. Navya Naiyāyikās have left the speaking about the path towards liberation or puruśārthās (f) etc. They have laid emphasis on the correct apprehension of thing. This in their view will be a good ground for realization of truth. So rather than speaking about the goal they started considering the means of achieving this goal. For the solid base for the discussion of pramāņās Navya Naiyāyikās had neglected the sixteen categories of Pracina Nyāya and had accepted only the seven categories of Vaiseṣika () such as Sāmānya, Viseṣa, Samavāya, Abhāva (, fa, 41, 3119) etc. Besides the Navya Nyaya trend concentrated on the expressing of the reality of things by using the specific technical terms which will enable to struck a precise report between the speaker and the listener, and so there will be no misunderstandings while disobeying the real nature of the things.
Not only these technical terms were introduced. Also the new categories like Pratiyogita, Avacchedakatā (f, 3) etc. were used. Navya Nyaya puts forward the new qualities and attributes and the nature of the things which is different from the things generally apprehended by us due to these new qualities and attributes. We all know that in category of realities the changes happen according to the circumstances and these changes are always realized by us, but we usually do not express them in words. Navya Nyāya by introducing pratiyogita, avacchedakatā etc. tried to express these changes already in the very definition of things. Then the scholars were astonished and glad being provided these new series of words used by Navya Nyāya which were expressing the circumstantial

Page #10

changes of things. It seems that by that time these scholars belonging to all the schools of thought were already realizing the difficulty of expressing their thoughts in the traditional way of argumentation. Therefore after the introduction of the terminology of Navya Nyāya it was readily accepted by all the systems of the Indian learning instead of the previous patterns used till now. In this way the Navya Nyāya school increased the capability of valid and precise argumentaion. Even though there was the discussion in Prācina Nyāya from the nature of reasoning to nigrahasthāna (FUETTA) which also were the aspects of argumentation, but still the main aim of Prācina Nyāya was prameya, not pramāņa.
The categories mentioned by Gautama (tilah) were widely used by this later trend of Navya Nyāya. Unfortunately later Navya Nyāya texts became very difficult to understand because this extensive usage of the technical terms like pratiyogitā, avacchedakatā etc. which were totally incomprehensible for a layman. This might be also the reason why so few persons also nowadays choose to study the Navya Nyāya systems. To become master in this system there is a necessity of intellectual hard work opens the entrance in this field. This also is the reasons why Navya Nyāya was criticized by other schools. The opponents had told that the Naiyāyikās are making simple things difficult by using formula and technical phrases. But their objections are not correct as without the using of the terminology of Navya Nyāya we are unable to differentiate even between the absence of only a jar from the ‘absence of a jar and a cloth both.' We do realize the difference between these two types of absences but we cannot express this difference without using the technical terms of Navya Nyāya. Similarly there is the difference between the

Page #11

10
instances of knowledge there is fire on the mountain' and the ‘mountain is fiery' (parvate agniḥ and parvath agniman (900 37117:, yaa: 341141). But this minute difference can not be expressed nor explained without taking the help of the technical terms of Navya Nyāya like prakāratā, višesyatā (Yohlar, fagterai) etc. The ordinary words of the ordinary language are simply unable to express the subtle difference of these two sentences.
There are many other examples for which we need to take the help of the technical terms of Navya Nyāya and this proves the uniqueness of this system. Not only in the field of philosophical discussions. But without the terms of Navya Nyāya it is difficult to explain the meaning of the first śloka of Amarakośa yasya jñānamayasindho.' (pey 511441FT-ET) Why the pronoun yat (Tl) denotes this particular thing and not another ? The answer to this question can be found only with the help of the Navya Nyāya terminology.
The well-known fourth sutra of Gautama has only fifteen letters. But Gangeśopadhyāya had written the whole his treat Tattvaciñtāmaņi consisting of 2000 lines only on it. Besides Tattvaciñtāmaņi, later was so widely commented. It is wellknown that the scholars from Mithilā, Bengal, Dravida regions and Mahārāshtra had written enumerable commentaries on this treat on which later so many great scholars, have written subcommantaries and sub-sub-commentaries and so the Navya Nyāya writings of many million lines came into existence. In this way Navya Nyāya being a new school has also quite an old and lengthy tradition. And the commentaries and sub-commentaries like Dīdhiti, Jāgadīshī, Gādādharī, Māthuri and Krodapatras (afufa, HNTGIRÎT, PIIGTETT, Htech, sh1597) can not be considered to be just useless gossips. Expressing the weighted of this system a

Page #12

11
scholar had written all study Nyāya with enthusiasm and also write alse books on this system but only few can understand the secrets of this system.
Here the question arises : What is the difference between the Prācina and Navya Nyāya ? Regarding this there are so many different views of the scholars. Some say that this is the type of discourse by using in abundance the words avacchedaka, avacchinna (अवच्छेदक, अवच्छिन्न) etc. what matters most in Navya Nyāya. But this is not correct. In the definition of God in Samadhipada (समाधिपाद) of Patanjalisutras (पतंजलि सूत्र) as sa pūrveṣāmapi guruh kālenāvacchedāt. (A danufa Té: CHI TIGIT) Here also the word avaccheda is used. But this text is not even related to Navya Nyāya.
Then some other scholars say that Maharshi Gautama etc. to refute nairātmyavāda, vijñānavāda (tretag, fasllwait) of Cārvāka (alaido), tenets of Bauddha etc. established existence self by inference. The aspects of inference for other's sake which are accepted in Nyāya were described in Sutra, Bhaśya, Vārtika and Tātparya-ikā (FE, 94704, alac, dicefalcot) etc. and this should be considered to be Prācina Nyāya. And the treatises like Tattvacintāmani, its commentaries and sub-commentaries which discuss only the components of pramāns for the valid knowledge of categories should be considered to be Navya Nyāya. But such an approach also is not proper. If only due to the discussion of pramāņs some texts would be considered to be belonging to Navya Nyāya then the treaties of Jain Nyāya and Bauddha Nyāya where pramāņs are discussed also would be considered to be belonging to Navya Nyāya.

Page #13

12
Other scholars opinion that the refutation of the doctrines of Carvāka and Bauddha which are found in the ancient treatises prior to Tattvacintāmaņi should be considered as belonging to Prācina Nyāya and the works after Tattvacintāmaņi and its commentaries where the refutation of the views of other orthodox systems like Mimāmsa, Nyāya (H14141, ) etc. is undertaken such works are to be considered as belonging to Navya Nyāya. But this view also is not quite correct as in the more ancient works also there is the criticism of the tenets of the orthodox systems of the Indian Philosophy.
The term “Navya Nyāya” is a technical term. Gangesa who was an exceptionally great logician after the study of Nyāyabhāśya and its commentaries and sub-commentaries and also after the study of works by Dignāga (Fern) etc., wrote “Tattvacintāmani” in the form of the essence of all these treatiese. From this work Nyāyaśastra was named as Navya Nyāya. The treatises prior to “Tattvacintāmaņi” are known as Prācinanyāya.
Some scholars do divide the Nyāya philosophy into three trends: Prācina, Navya and Navya-Navya. The period from Gautama sutras to Udayana is considered to be Prācina Nyāya. From Udayana to Dīdhitikāra the trend is considered to be Navya Nyāya. From Dīdhitikāra onwards it is Navya-Navya Nyāya. But in fact there is no ground for a such division in ancient new and modern Nyāya. Because almost in all these works we find a novelty of some issues. If the division is made in such a way then even more multiple divisions are possible and it may lead to the regresses and infinitude. Therefore it is better if we stick to the division accepted earlier.

Page #14

13
Navya Nyāya. (1) Gangesopādhyāya.
Gangesopādhyāya is considered to be the founder of the Navya Nyāya school. By writing Tattvacintāmaņi he had created the revolution not only in the field of the Nyāya philosophy but in all the branches of the Indian learning. This treatise changed the nature of thought and the method of the discussion of the philosophical doctrines. After the composition of Tattvacintāmaņi mostly all the branches of the Indian philosophy, Rhetoric, Grammar, Literary criticism and even Ayurveda had accepted the new terminology and the method of argumentation of Navya Nyāya inspect of the technical terms like pratiyogitā, avacchedakatā etc. contained in it. All the writers of the later period made the language of Navya Nyāya the medium of expression of their idea. Since the 13th century in India the language of Navya Nyāya had been utilized in all the branches learning.
The contribution of Gangesa to the Indian systems of learning is unparallel in the whole history of indology. There was not even a single writer in the medieval age who was not inspired very much by the magnumopus of Gangeśa named Tattvacintāmani.
Tattvacintāmani of Gangeša is divided into four chapters in which the four pramāṇas : perception, inference, analogy and the verbal testimony had been discussed. Gangesa had made a promise in the beginning of his work by writing the words pramanatattvamatra vivicyate (प्रमाणतत्त्वमत्र विविच्यते ) (here the essence of the means of attaining of the valid knowledge will be discussed). Only because of this reason the Navya Nyāya

Page #15

14
philosophy of often called pramāṇaśastra. When reading Tattvacintamani we can see that Gangeśa was influenced very much by Prācina Nyāya and inspired by the Prabhākara (प्रभाकर) school of Mimāmsa. The main conflict for Gangeśa was not with the Buddhists as it was in the case of Udayanācārya. The main opponents of Gangeśa were the Prabhakara Mimāmsakās. During the time of Gangeśa there was a very great influence of the Prabhakara Mimāmsa in Mithila. Therefore the most of the arguments of Gangeśa were developed on the opposition to the Prabhakara Mimāmsa Philosophy. This is first of all obvious from the commentary on Tattvacimtāmani by Rucidatta ( रुचिदत्त). Gangeśa was also very much impressed by Nyāyamañjari (न्यायमंजरी) by Jayanta Bhatta (जयन्त भट्ट). This Kashmir (काश्मीर) scholar was referred to for the first time in the Eastern India exactly by Gangeśa. Gangeśa was also a distinguished poet as it was mentioned by his son Vardhamāna Upādhyāya. Gangeśa himself also had mentioned that he was a poet.
Regarding the family of Gangeśopadhyaya the scholars had traced the reference to his family in the gotrapanthi (maч1⁄2f) of Mithila. His village was named Chidden (f) and situated in the state of Mithilā. Unfortunately the more detailed information about it is still inaccessible. Gangeśa belonged to Kasyapa gotra (). He was having three sons: Vardhamāna, Supan and Hari (वर्धमान, सुपन, हरि). In the register of gotra he had been described as pramāṇaguru. Nyāyakoshakāra Pt. Bhimācārya Zhalakikar (न्यायकोशकार पं. भीमाचार्य झळकीकर) has mentioned Gangesa to be a resident of Bengal state, but perhaps it is just an obvious mistake. The time of Gangeśa is stated to be the 11th century of Samvat (H). Some scholars say that Gangeśopadhyāya was prior to 1030 A.D. They base this conclusion on the fact that the

Page #16

15
king Laksmanasena (7&HUTTA) was ruling Bengal in 1030 A.D. and there was a Pundit Halāyudh Bhatt (EcliET VE) in his court. Gangesopādhyāya is considered to be prior to Halāyudh Bhatt. Prof. Dineśa Chandra Bhattācarya (FGANG Elarf) had criticized the view of Dr. Keat, Dr. Vidyābhusana, Dr. Hari Prasād sastrī etc. (EŤ. faahu, RUHIG girait) and had proved that the time of Gangesa was the 13th century A.D. according to historical evidence found in Mithilā. Dr. Vidyābhusana had established that Gangeśa was the native of the village Khārian (afen) situated in the state of Mithilā. He had pointed out that some scholars point that Gangesa was a native of Māngroni (HİR) village situated near Madhubani (pari) in the state of Mithilā. It is known that the earlier name of Mangroni was Mangalvāni (Han). (2) Pakṣadhara Miśra
After Gangesa, Pakşadhara Miśra was the only scholar who established his own independent traditon in the field of Navya Nyāya by writing the commentary on Tattvacintāmaņi name Aloka (341611). Aloka was the main treatise for study of Navya Nyāya all over India for so many years. Aloka was written on the three chapters of Tattvacintāmani except Upamāna (34717). The commentary Aloka was the only work of Paksadhara Miśra known to scholars for very long time. Later after search and investigation two more works by Pakşadhara Miśra were found : Dravyaviveka and Nyāyalīlāvatīviveka (garaach, peccanicach). The manuscripts of them were found in the India Office Library together with a commentary of Vardhamān Updhyāya on Dravyaviveka. This is referred to in Nyāyalīlāvatīviveka. Nyāyalīlāvatīviveka is a more voluminous work but there is no any reference to Pakşadhara Miśra in it.

Page #17

16
Only in the colophon of an available manuscript there had been written. So Nyāyalīlāvatīviveka written by Paksadhara Miśra is completed
The other two works of Paksadhara Miśra had been traced in Varanasī (artî). One of them is a commentary in the form of notes on Tattvacintāmani and the other is the commentary on Nyāyasiddhāntadīpa by śaśadhara (ReFHGIAGIY PTSTETT). The Nephew of Paksadhara Miśra named Vāsudeva (वासुदेव) who was also his student had referred to another work named Pramanapallava (प्रमाणपल्लव).
The earlier name of Pakşadhara Miśra was Jayadeva Miśra (hega A). There is aligned that once he was called for a debate and there he presented one of his doctrines for complete forthnight (paksa). After this he was named as Paksadhara. Most of the scholars are of the opinion that Jayadeva who is the author of Candrāloka (Eigirild) was the same person as Paksadhara Miśra. There is a famous legend that Raghunātha siromaņi (रघुनाथ शिरोमणि) after having completed his study on Navya Nyaya from Vāsudeva Sārvabhauma (anyga HIDHTH) in Bengal was still not fully satisfied with his achievement. Having heard about the renowned scholarship of Paksadhara Miśra, Širomani came to Mithilā for further study from Paksadhara Miśra. During that time the gurukul (Th) of Pakşadhara Miśra was very famous. And there were so many scholars there. There was also the restriction for newcomers to see Paksadhara Miśra directly. Usually there were five pandits at the external gate and three pandits used to sit at the internal door. New students first met the scholars at the external gate. Only after the logical debate with them the newcomeras could proceed towards the internal door. Only after defeating the pandits at the internal gate a

Page #18

17
newcomer could meet Paksadhara Miśra. Raghunātha Śiromani defeated all the scholars and was introduced to Pakşadhara Miśra from whom he later got vast and deep knowledge of Navya Nyāya.
There is a dispute among the scholars regarding the excellent scholarship of Paksadhara Miśra in the subject of Navya Nyāya. In Pakşatāprakarana of Anumānakhanda (T&a1 प्रकरण अनुमानखंड) of Aloka the declines of samsayapaksata and samsaya-yogyatā-pakşatā (HP9AT, H ered19&A) had been established. They indicate independent brilliant scholarship of the author. Influence of the thought of Paksadhara Miśra on the development of doctrine of sāmānyalaksanā (HIARIA&TUTT) and prāgabhāva (141a) is found even in the later works on Navya
Nyāya.
The time of Paksadhara Miśra is believed to be the 13th century A.D. It is said that the statue of Paksahdara Miśra was erected in front of Navadvipa university in Bengal. This statue was retched by Raghunātha siromani, his student and devotee. (3) Raghunātha siromaņi
Tārkikaśiromani, the jewel of logicians Raghunātha was a native of Bengal. He had lost his father already in his childhood. His mother sent him to the school of Vasudeva Sārvabhauma. Vāsudeva started to teach Raghunātha from the very beginning. Later this child became the greatest logician of India of all the times. During the study years of Raghunātha, Paksadhara Miśra was a very renowned scholar of Navya Nyāya in Mithilā. No opponent could come even close to him in debate. There is as saying in praise of Pakṣadhara stating that there was a similarity between Sankara (Picha) and Vācaspati (aleyfa) but there was no

Page #19

18
opponent in debate for Paksadhara. Hearing about the renowned scholarship of Pakşadhara Miśra, Raghunātha Siromani came to Mithilā to study under him. When after the debate with the pandits at the gate Raghunātha reached Pakşadhara the aged scholar seeing Raghunātha being blind with one eye slightly ridiculed the new student by saying. "Indra (5-5) has thousand eyes, the lord Shiva has three, we all have two eyes, who are you having only one eye ?” Siromani on the spot gave a very befitting and answer, “It is correct that Indra has thousand eyes and the lord Shiva is having three eyes. As well that it is true that all of you are blind (having no eyes) when I see with the one eye of Nyāya.” Receiving such a reply Paksadhara Miśra was very much pleased and accepted Siromani as his disciple.
By his excellence in the field of Nyāya, Raghunātha had superseded his teacher Pakşadhara. He had directly refuted several theories of his teacher in his famous commentary of Tattvacintāmani named Dīdhiti. The commentary of Paksadhara Miśra on Tattvacintāmaņi is also a very outstanding work. But Raghunātha Siromani in his treatise had proved that the doctrines which had been thought to be faultless unanimously by the galaxy of the scholars before him were defective and those which were proved by them to be wrong were declared faultless by Raghunātha when he argued in the debate. The same we can find in all of the works by Raghunātha. For example, he differs with Pakşadhara Miśra on the issue of sāmānyalakṣaṇa. At the time of debate Pakşadhara Miśra had said to Raghunātha Śiromaņi :- "single eyed by birth, why are you refuting sāmānyalakṣaṇa which is obvious in the case of doubt ?” This was answered by Dīdhitikāra in the chapter on sāmānyalaksaņa

Page #20

19
under the introductory heading atrīyā vadanti. (अत्रीया वदन्ति )
The commentary by Raghunatha Śiromani on Tattvacintamani named Dīdhiti is a very outstanding work in the field of Navya Nyaya. There are so many commentaries written on Tattvacintamani but the honor given to Didhiti by the scholars are not given to any other work. Later Dīdhiti was commented upon by many well-known subcommentators like Jagadiśa, Gadādhara, Bhavānanda, Mathurānātha etc. (जगदीश, गदाधर, भवानंद,
) and their works are studied and discussed all over India from Himalaya to Kanyākumāri even nowadays. Apart from this work Raghunatha Siromani had also written commentary on other works like Khandanakhaṇḍakhādya, Nyāyamañjarī, ātmatattvaviveka, Kiranāvalī (खंडनखंडखाद्य, न्यायमंजरी, आत्मतत्त्वविवेक, fault) etc. Besides these he had written an independent work named Padārthatatva-nirupana (पदार्थतत्त्व - निरुपण ) where he had refused the view about separateness being a quality and space and time being categories. In his works Raghunatha Siromani had criticized the theories established by his predecessors like sāmānyalakṣaṇā, kevalānvayi, kevalavyatirekānumāna, prāgabhāva (सामान्यलक्षणा, केवलान्वयि, केवलव्यतिरेकानुमान, प्रागभाव) and the theory that the knowledge of the counterpoisitive is the cause of the knowledge of absence. Raghunatha had also established arthāpatti (presumption) (f) to be a separate means of valid knowledge etc. In this way he had given a revolutionary turn to the development of the Navya Nyaya school of the Indian logic. Therefore without any hesitation we can accept that Raghunatha Śiromani was a true Śiromani, a jewel on the crest of Navya Nyaya.

Page #21

20
(4) Yajñapati Upādhyāya ( uştufa 347827121 )
Yajñapati Upādhyāya was a Maithil Brāhmin resident of Mithilā. He was grandson of Gangesa Upādhyāya and son of Vardhamān Upādhyāya. He was born in the begining of 14th century. He had written an independent commentary on Tattvachintāmani. Except pervasion his opinion is being quoted in all matters of Nyāya. Later critics have quoted him as
Upādhyāyāstu' or 'Yajñapatyupādhyāyāstu.' (39157171FT) (यज्ञपत्युपाध्यायास्तु)
The commentary of Yajñapati Upādhyāya 'Prabhā' (TH) on ‘Tattvacintāmani' is on there parts-Pratyaksa, Anumāna, and sabda (979& 3T71 2706). He had left Upamāna. The manuscripts of Prabhā are very few. One copy is found at Goverment library of Darbhangā, in which its time is quoted 1428 saksamvat means 1486 A.D.
Prof. Dinesh rejects about his heredity that he was son of Vardhmān Upādhyāya and grandson of Gangesa Upādhyāya. He had also rejected the quotation of Sabda Kalpadruma (910G chc45h), that he was pupil of Vardhamān and Gangeśa. He is of opinion, his father was Śivapati (fprayfa) who had written ane independent book on Nyāya on the base of same Yajñapati had written his Prabhā. (5) Mathurānāth Tarkvāgisa ( H atet charitat)
Mathurānāth Tarkavāgiấa was a Bengali Brāhmin. His father Śrirām Tarkālankār (STTH nafciatori) was a famous logician. The Primary learning of Mathurānāth was from his father only. Then he went be learn Nyāya at famous logician Raghunāth siromaņi. He was resident of Manihāri (HffERT) town of Bengal.

Page #22

21
His period is being considered at 16th century. He had written commentaries on Tattvacintāmani and Tattvacintamani Dīdhiti, which are famous by the name Māthuri (H1°). It's name is ‘Rahasya’ (TE). He has his commentaries on “Kusumāñjali' ( HiG ) and Atmatattva vivek (3416Hatalado).
He has also written Māthurī on Pakshadhar Miśra's Alok, but it is still unpublished. He has also an independent volume on Nyāya as 'Nyāya-Rahasya’ (F4-FER). He was not only scholar but lucky also. His descendants are still at Manihāri town. (6) Jāgadiśa Tarkālaņkara ( Heigt Achiricha)
Jāgadiśa Tarkālankara was pupil of Bhavānand Tarkavāgisa (alia ndaritzt). He has written a criticism on Dīdhiti which is famous and now known as “Jāgdīšī (HKGİYÍT). On the Anumān chapter of Dīdhiti, Jāgdīshī and its pervasion is so scholarly written he supersedes Gadādhara ("TGTETT) and Mathurānātha. In addition to Dīdhiti he written commentary on Pakshadhara Miśra’s ‘Alok’ also. 'Sabda-Śakti-Prakaśikā’ (1091f76 4 121061) 'Tarkāmruta' (afqa) and 'Nyāyādarśa' (PRIGES) are his independent volumes. 'Sabda-Śakti-Prakāśikā? is the best work in linguistics. Similarly he had tried to fill up the ocean of Nyāya in a jar in 'Tarkāmruta. His period is being considered in 16th century. (7) Viśvanātha Pancānana ( fartet UEFA )
Vishvanātha Pañcānana was Bengali Brahmin and was resident of Bengal. Śriniwāsa Bhattācārya (Pftar Harf) was his father. As a favour on his pupil Rājiv (Tula) he had written ‘Nyāya-Siddhant-Muktāvali (Priftian Tamt) in 1556 Shak.

Page #23

22
Eventhough he created 'Kārikavalī (or clasīt) was rather difficult for his pupil as such again with kind heart he wrote commentary ‘Muktāvalī' on ‘Karikāvali'. Also one criticism is found on Nyaya aphorisms known as Visvanatha Vritti (विश्वनाथafe). He was resident of Navadvīpa (79814) but was stabled at Vrindāvana (@GICA). He was trained in tradition of Raghunātha Siromani. The commentary on Nyāya-Siddhānt-Muktāvalī known as 'Dinkarī (FG71068) and its criticism “Rāmrudrī (T4651) are famous all over for its scholarship. (8) Gadādhara Bhattācārya ( HTGTETT TETaref)
He was son of Jivācārya (alar) and resident of Bengal. He completed his study of whole Nyāya at Navadvīp (नवद्वीप) with Harirama Tarkavagisa (हरिराम तर्कवागीश). His period is considered at middle of 17th century. He had written so many books, some of which are unavailable. Some of them are - (1) The criticism of Nyāya Kusumañjalī (P11454HisKi), (2) ‘Dīdhiti' on 'Alok' of Tattvacintāmani, (3) Gādādhari (FTIGTETT) Ātma-tattva-viveka, Dīdhiti-Prakāśikā (3415hlarafaa , afafayohiffroht). (4) Commentary on Muktāvalī (uhlasít) (5) The criticism of Durgā-sapta-śatī (GUTHHEINT) (6) Bāhyanirņaya (qafufa) and by Vād-granth (alget) as, out of which most are not reliable. In this Saktivada (शक्तिवाद) Vyutpttivada (व्युत्पत्तिवाद) are main. Some others Avacchedak-vāda (379 759 Garg) Karaṇatāvāda (76 xurdian) Muktivāda (final) Ākhyatvada (आख्यातवाद) Nahyarthvada (नार्थवाद) Smritisamskarvada (Aialaig) Paryāptivāda (qeifhaig) Sādruśyavāda (HEX(15) Visayatavada (विषयतावाद) Navyamatavada (नव्यमतवाद) Karakvad (Folha1c) are famous. Other “Vāda’ are not available.
After Gadādhar the flow of Navya Nyāya was

Page #24

23
progressive. There were so many famous logicians who had enriched the store of Navya Nyāya.
The nominated logicians after Gadādhar are as under. (1) Rāmrudra Tarkvāgisa (3745&adaritet) (1700 A.D.) The
writer of criticism Dīdhiti, Vyāptivāda (Zulharc) criticism etc. Shri Krisna Nyāyālańkāra (sics PATITI) (1650 A.D.).
Bhāvadīpikā (Hracificht) (3) Krisņakānt - Vidyāvāgisa (Eh our chiaraa anta) (1780 A.D.)
Nyayaratnāvali etc. (न्यायरत्नावली) (4) Mahādeva Punatambekara (Helgaquaia ) (1790 A.D.)
Nyāyakaustubha (741471 FEL97) Vyāpti-rahasya-criticism (QuilheRecht) etc.
Later on Nyāya and Vaišeșika (a 911906) are combinated. On the base of which so many volumes are constructed, out of which 'Tark-sangraha' (HAHE) is main. It was written by Annambhatta (37719) who was resident of south (1623 A.D.) There are so many criticism on his Tark-sangrah. It has been translated in so many Indian language. It's english translation is also published. This is prescribed in curriculum of so many universities all over. Similarly Nyāya-Sidhdhānt-Muktāvalī of Viśvanāth Pancānan is unparallal work in Nyāya-Vaisheśik. There are so many criticism on it. It has also translated in so many Indian languages and English.

Page #25

Introduction: Vyāpti-Pañcakam
—
Dr. Balirāma Sukla
In our tradition of teaching on Navya Nyaya system of logic we start teaching of Navya Nyaya from Vyāpti - pañcakrahasya (mathurī) of Mathurānātha. There are different names have been used for vyapti by different schools of Indian logic, Viz. Avinābhāva, Sāhacarya, Niyama, Anaupādhikasambandha, Samaya, etc. (अविनाभाव, साहचर्य, नियम, अनौपाधिकसंबंधसमय).
In the Tattvacintāmaṇi of Gangeśa it is stated as Avyabhicaritatva, (state of not having deviation) Vyāpti is most important part of inference. Taking in to account its importance in the process of inferential knowledge, Acārya Annambhatta has said “Anumānasya dve Ange vyāptiḥ Paksadharmatā ca.” (अनुमानस्य द्वे अङ्गे, व्याप्तिः पक्षधर्मता च।) There are two parts of inference, Vyapti and Pakṣadharmatā, (existence of the reason in the subject.)
Though the Tattvacintāmaṇi has been commented by several authors but Mathurī commentary on this portion, is taught first to get enter in this system. Because the Māthurī commentary on this portion is neither long nor short, therefore it is appreciated to enter in the field on Navya Nyaya system. Generally in north India naiyāyikās start teaching on Navya Nyāya by Vyāpti-pañcaka-Māthurī but in South India they start this teaching by Gadādhari commentary on Dīdhiti on Tattvacintamani. Though the nature of vyāpti relation is

Page #26

25
expressed in the phrase "where ever the smoke there is fire", but question arises how can we say 'where ever the smoke there is fire' with confidence ? and What is the theory behind this belief? Someone may doubt 'let there be smoke without fire' how can we remove this doubt about deviation? These are some questions should be answered. To answer these questions we will have to make universality of the relation. Without it we can't establish any theory, therefore Gangesa has narrated negative form of vyāpti there would not be universality without negation.
Avyabhicaritattva (absence of deviation) can't be defined without using negative term. Though naiyāyikās have accepted pure affirmative form of inference but in day to day practice generally negative cum affirmative inference is used, therefore for universality of vyāpti relation, vyāpti should be defined in negative form, and so to say Gangeśa has stated Avyabhicaritattva as vyapti which means 'absence of deviation.' When the absence of deviation is accepted as the nature of vyāpti there is no need of observation of existence of all hetus (reasons) with all sadhyas (that which is to be established.) The deviation (vyabhicāra) can be grasped in one instance of reason also, and the knowledge of deviation causes the knowledge of absense of deviations, this is because the knowledge of counterpositive is the cause of knowledge of absence. When someone looks fire in a hot-iron-ball, where is the absence of smoke, he realizes deviation between smoke and fire, thus he apprehends deviation in the form of Sādhyābhavavadvrittitva (साध्याभाववद्वृत्तित्व) 'occurrence of reason in that which has the absence of sadhya.' In this way there may be so many forms of deviation viz.
1. Sādhyābhāvavadvrittitva (H&Haqqfara) 2.

Page #27

26
Sādhyasāmānyādhikaranatva (HTZIARIETC uca) 3. Sādhyavaiyadhikaranyādhikraṇatva. (Heya afya yugtfurca) 4. Sadhyavadanyabhāvadhikranatva. (साध्यवदन्याभावाधिकरणत्व) 5.
Hetvadhikaranavritti abhavapratiyogikatva. (हेत्वधिकरणवृत्त्यHayfeifcora) etc. On the basis of absence of sādhya many definitions of deviation can be made. When in the end of definitions of deviation the term absence (abhāva) is used that definitions become definitions of vyāpti.
The sādhyābhāva-vadavrittitva (H2H10aGaraia) is first definition is personated by Gangesa. For the condition of vyāpti, there is no need to see the coexistence of hetu and sādhya in all
aces. Similarly there is no need to perceive all counterpositives of absence to grasp absence, after knowing one instance of smoke one can cognize the absence of smoke in the hot-iron-ball, and when one instance of absence of smoke is found in the locus of reason viz. fire the deviation becomes clear in between smoke and fire and when the perception of smoke does not happen in the locus of the absence of fire the deviation is not cognizer in between fire and smoke, therefore vyāpti' in the form of absence of deviation is recognized. Thus the non-apprehension of deviation brings out the vyāpti, in the form of non-deviation.
1. Sadhyābhāva-vadavrittitvam. (HTEZH10acqarah) 'the mountain has fire because of smoke’-this inference is based on the definition of vyāpti as “Sadhyābhāva-vadavrittitvam.” Here sādhya is fire, the absence of fire is sadhyābhāva, the locus of it is water etc. there smoke does not exist. Therefore there is absence of occurrence in the smoke, hence this definition is applied in this inference. But if some one wants to infer smoke on the basis of fire, this definition of vyāpti can't be applied, because in the locus of absence of smoke viz. hot-iron-ball the

Page #28

27
fire is located, therefore there is no absence of occurrence in the fire.
According to Mathuranath the meaning of nondeviation is 'Sadhyābhāvādhikaraṇanirūpitavrittitvābhāva' (साध्याभावाधिकरणनिरूपितवृत्तित्वाभाव) the absence of occurrence indicated by the locus of absences of that which is to be established. Though this definition is based on ‘Vyadhikraṇabahuvrihi (gif) compound which is not considered correct to apply in every case, but there is no other way to maintain the reason as non-occurrent (avritti f) in the locus of the absence of sadhya without tripada vyadhikraṇa bahuvrīhi (त्रिपदव्यधिकरणबहुव्रीहि) compound.
Raghunath Siromani has stated the reason of rejection of this definition pointing out the fault of too narrow application (avyāpti ) in the inference sadhya of which has incomplete occurrence (avyāpyavritti f), therefore the second definition in the form of 'sadhyavadbhinnasādhyābhāvavadavrttitvam' (साध्यवद्भिन्नसाध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वम्) is introduced. In this inference 'this tree has the conjunction of monkey because of this-tree-ness', the first definition can't be applied because the reason viz. 'this-tree ness' occurred in this tree which has absence of conjunction of monkey in the root of this tree which is the substratum of the absence of sadhya. A monkey is conjoined with a branch of tree and not the root of tree, hence there is occurrence (vrittitva qft) indicated by the substratum (adhikaraṇa (3) of the absence of sadhya, so there is a fault of too narrow application.
Mathuranath has tried to remove this fault by modifying this definition. According to him 'the absence of occurrence of the reason indicated by the substratum which is the locus of that substratum-ness which is not delimited (avacchinna

Page #29

28
37910gal) by any characteristic and which is indicated by early mentioned sādhyābhāvatva. (HTZT410a) The idea is here the absence of conjunction of monkey always with a part of tree viz. a branch and not root, there is absence of conjunction on monkey therefore the substratum-ness of the absence of mokey is determined by its root it is not ‘niravacchinna’ (Farosgal). The absence of monkey in quality etc. is not delimited by any attribute, therefore the locus-ness of the absence of conjunction on monkey non-determined is in quality and not in the tree, hence the quality would be locus of non-determined locus-ness and there tree-ness does not exist, therefore definition of vyāpti is applied, but there would be fault of avyāpti in the inference 'this has the absence of monkey because of existence here then on determined locus of absence of sādhya is not established. The conjunction of monkey is delimited by branches etc. Mathurānāth answers that Ācārya Gangesa has himself refuted this definition by the expression “Kevalānvayinyabhāvāt? (केवलान्वयिन्यभावात्). Hence this fault should not be considered
here.
The effort of Mathurānāth to remove the fault shown by Raghunātha is to make another definition only, without change in definition Mathurānath also can't remove the fault of avyāpti (31241A). Gangesa also has removed that fault by making second definition ‘sādhyavadbhinna’ (FTE207967) etc. Therefore there is similarity in their efforts.
Besides in the opinion of those who present the first definition ‘sādhyābhāvavadavrtitva' (HTETT 910ldgafela) the absence of conjunction on monkey is different in each locus due to difference in substratum, because two opposite attributes viz. complete occurrence and incomplete occurrence can't exist in one and same place, the absence of conjunction

Page #30

29
of monkey, which exists in a tree, and which exists in the quality are different, in this case the undetermined(aniyantrita 37f73fata locus-ness of the absence of conjunction is unestablished. Therefore it is better to remove mentioned fault of ‘avyāpti' by second definition ‘sādhyavadbhinna' etc.
2. Sādhyavadbhinnasādhyābhāvavadavrttitvam, (HTZवद्भिन्नसाध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वम्). This definition is mentioned to remove the fault of too narrow application ‘avyāpti' in the inference “this has the conjunction of monkey because of this tree. Here this tree which has absence of sādhya is not different from the locus of sādhya, quality etc. which has the absence of sādhya is different from the locus of sādhya because conjunction which is a quality dose not exist in quality, hence in the quality which is the locus of absence of sādhya, this tree-ness (etadvriksatvaVaegtra) dose not exist, there is no fault of ‘avyāpti.'
Raghunātha Siromani has refuted this definition. According to him the absence of conjunction which exists in quality and action is not different from the absence of conjunction which exists in the tree, there is no proof to prove difference in absence due to difference in it's substrata.
According to Mathurānātha in the definition Sādhyavadbhinnasādhyābhāvavadavrttitvam (HTE207967HTEZIHidacqua) the word ‘sādhyavadbhinna’ is useless by the word 'sādhyavadbhinnavrttitvam' early mentioned fault is avoided, this tree-ness (etadvskśatva-Treetra) does not occurred in quality etc. which is different from that which has sādhya.
3. Sādhyavatpratiyogikānyonyābhāvasāmānyadhikaranyam (Feza ufaf ARĪRTACHAPIRET V44)
Mathurānāth has explained this definition following way 'absence of occurrence indicated by the substratum of the mutual absence which indicates counter-positive-ness exists in

Page #31

30
the locus of sādhya.' For example in the inference 'the hill has fire because of smoke. Sādhya is fire. The mutual absence of sādhyavān (FT2016) is the mutual absence of the locus of fire which exists in water etc. there is occurrence of fish etc. and the absence of that occurrence exists in the smoke. In this way the definition is applied. While in the invalid inference such as 'the hill has smoke because it has fire this definition is not applied. The mutual absence of the locus of smoke exists in the hot-iron-ball where fire exists therefore there is no absence of occurrence in the reason fire. Therefore it is invalid reason.
Ācārya Raghunātha has pointed out the rejection of this definition by showing the fault of too narrow application in all valid reasons because the reason exists in the example which is different from subject (paksa 47). Therefore there is no absence of occurrence in the reason, hence the fourth definition was introduced. If to avoid this fault by the expression 'the mutual absence of the locus of sādhya' the mutual absence counterpositive-ness of which is determined by the locus-ness of sādhya, means the mutual absence of all locus of sādhya, there would be repeatition of fifth definition.
4. Sakala-sādhyābhāvavannisthābhāvā-pratiyogitvam (सकलसाध्याभाववन्निष्ठाभावाप्रतियोगित्वम्)
Absence of counter-positive-ness of the absence which exists in all substrata of the absence of sādhya, is the meaning. In the inference 'the hill has fire because it has smoke in all substrata of fire, the absence of smoke exists, therefore the counter-positive-ness of that absence exists in smoke, hence the definition is applied. But there is no absence of fire in all substrata of smoke therefore in invalid inference 'this has smoke because it has fire' the definition is not applied. In the substratum of the absence of smoke viz. hot-iron-ball the fire

Page #32

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

Page #33

32
particular colour is one, therefore ‘All can't be qualifier of sādhya. According to Mathurānātha the word 'All in this definition, is used in the sense of inclusion (aśesa 37979) not many, therefore there is no early mentioned fault where is only one substratum of absence of sādhya that also will be included, therefore ‘Allis qualifier of the substratum of the absence of sādhya.
5. sādhyavadanyāvrittitvam (HTEYOPATH)
In the inference ‘hill has fire because of smoke the fire is sādhya the locus of sādhya is hill other than that is water where is the absence of smoke so there in smoke, is the absence of occurrence (vrttitva qard). In this way definition is applied. In the invalid inference this has smoke because of fire this definition is not applied, in the hot-iron-ball which is different from the locus of sādhya, fire exists there, therefore there is no absence of occurrence in fire.
In this definition the absence of occurrence (vrttitva) should be known as the absence of occurrence in general, because there is absence of occurrence indicated (nirūpita Fafya) by water in fire, hence there is a fault of over extension in the invalid inference ‘hill has smoke because of fire', in the occurrence in general, includes the occurrence indicated by hot-iron-ball, the absence of that occurrence dose not exist in fire, occurs in the hot-iron-ball.
The substratum of sādhya should be known by that relation by which sādhya is desired to be established in the subject (paksa 48), otherwise there would be fault of ‘avyāpti’ in the inference ‘hill has fire because of smoke' by the relation inherence (samavāya 44911) fire exists in the part of fire other than that is hill where smoke occurs, here desired relation is conjunction, (samyoga ier) by this relation fire exists in the

Page #34

33
hill which is not different from that, different from that is lake etc. where fire dose not occur, hence there is no fault of too narrow application, this is the idea.
Similarly by which relation reason (hetu all) is desired in subject the occurrence should be known, otherewise there would be fault of avyāpti in the infernce ‘hill has fire because of smoke.' The smoke exists in it's part which is different from the substratum of sādhya, when the relation which determines the state of being reason is introduced there would not be mentioned fault because by the relation ‘samyoga smoke dose not occur in it's part.
There is very minute difference between third and fifth definitions. In third definition the mutual absence counterpositive of which is the locus of sādhya only is included, while in fifth definition the mutual absence the counter-positive-ness of which is determined by the locusness of sādhya (sādhyavattva 2017). There is fault of ‘avyāpti' of third definition in the inference 'hill has fire because of smoke' taking mutual absence of fire through ‘cālaniya-nyāya.' (almiRIRI
All these five definitions are based on the original concept of non-deviation, where is no deviation there is ‘vyāpti. All these definitions are made taking in to account the agreement (anvaya 37-02) and disagreement (vyatireka aft) 'where-ever reason (hetu) there is sādhya' and 'where-ever absence of sādhya there is absence of reason (hetu).' All these are not applied in the 'pure affirmative (kevlānvayi Jadi-afil) inference such as “it is namable because of knowable' the absence of sādhya is not established, everything is namable, therefore there is no absence of namability anywhere.
In this way all these five definitions are faulty with regard pure affirmative inference. In first definition absence of sādhya is not established, and in second, third, and fifth the

Page #35

34
mutual absence of locus of sādhya is not established. All things are namable, hence difference from them is not established. In fourth definition also the absence of sādhya is not established so this definition is faulty.
According to Gangesa all these five definitions are not applicable with ‘kevalānvayi anumāna (aradi-af4-377915). According to Mathurānātha four definitions beginning from second are faulty with regard the inference ‘it has absence of monkey because of existence' because the absence counterpositive-ness of which is determined by the relation which determines the state of sādhya, is not established, the absence of monkey which has incomplete occurrence exists everywhere in this world. Similarly the difference from the locus of ‘vācyatva' (alla) also is not established, whole universe is namable (vācya 0124).
Mathurānātha says that to avoid fault of avyāpti because in the inference 'this tree has conjunction of monkey because of this treeness' the expression ‘sādhyavadbhinna’ (97821019621) is used. That fault is not removed even that is used, because the absence of monkey which exists in quality which is different from that which has ‘sādhya’ exists in this tree also. There is no proof to establish difference in absences due to difference in their substrata. Therefore the fault of avyāpti remains infact, if to avoid this fault, the absence of sādhya is mentioned as qualified by occurrence in that which is different from the locus of sādhya, the word 'absence of sādhya' in the definition will be use-less.
Jāgadiśa has followed Raghunātha, the Jagadīšī is the commentary on Dīdhiti of Raghunātha Siromani, he has explained ideas of Raghunātha, his special contribution is found in the interpretation of fifth definition.

Page #36

Vyāpti-Pañcakam
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्

Page #37

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
तत्त्वचिन्तामणिः
(त. १) नन्वनुमितिहेतुव्याप्तिज्ञाने का व्याप्ति: ? न तावदव्यभिचरितत्त्वम् । तद्धि न साध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वम्, (त.२) साध्यवद्भिन्नसाध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वम्,
Five Definitions of Vyāpti Tattvacintāmaņi
(T.1) Here author follows the collection of five tentative definitions of invariable concomitance ( vyāpti)
(Now the question is), in the knowledge of invariable concomitance (vyāpti), which is the cause of inferential knowledge, what is invariable concomitance ( vyāpti ) ? Infact, it is not the state of having non-deviation (of the reason from that which is to be established) because invariableconcomitance is neither, the non-existence of the reason in such substratum which possesses the absence of that which is to be established. nor,
(T.2) The non-existence (of the reason) in the substratum which possesses the absence of that which is to be established and which is different form that which has the absence of that which is to be establised. nor,

Page #38

(त. ३) साध्यवत्प्रतियोगिकान्योन्याभावासामाना
धिकरण्यम्,
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
(त.४)
सकलसाध्याभाववन्निष्ठाभावप्रतियोगित्वम्,
(त. ५ ) साध्यवदन्यावृत्तित्वम् वा, केवलान्वयिन्य
भावात् ।
(T.3) The not co-existence (of the reason) with such a mutual absence which has the substratum of that which is to be established as its counter-positive. nor,
(T.4) The counter-positive-ness of the absence which resides in all substrata of the absence of that which is to be established. nor,
(T.5) The occurrence (of the reason) in the substratum which is different from that which has that which is to be established. This is because all these definitions are not applicable in the pure affirmative reason.

Page #39

श्रीमथुरानाथकृतं व्याप्तिपञ्चकरहस्यम् ।
(१) अनुमानप्रामाण्यं निरूप्य व्याप्तिस्वरूपनिरूपणमारभते-ननु इत्यादिना । अनुमितिहेतु इत्यस्य अनुमाननिष्ठप्रामाण्यानुमितिहेतु रित्यर्थः१, व्याप्तिज्ञान इत्यत्र च विषयत्वं सप्तम्यर्थः, तथा चानुमाननिष्ठप्रामाण्यानुमितिहेतुव्याप्तिज्ञानविषयीभूता व्याप्तिः का इत्यर्थः ।
Rahasya Commentary (1) Having discussed the validity of inference author starts the discussion about the nature of vyāpti by the expression 'but now the question is etc.' By the expression "cause of inferential knowledge” here it should be understood that cause of inferential knowledge of the validity of inferential knowledge1. And in the expression ‘in the knowledge of invariable concomitance' the meaning of locative case is the 'state of being object (visayatva विषयत्व), there fore, the meaning of the Gangesa's statement is that What is vyāpti, which is the object of the knowledge of vyāpti, which (knowledge) is the cause of inferential knowledge of validity in inference ? In the discussion of vyāpti after the discussion of validity of inference, the
1. अनुमाननिष्ठप्रामाण्यानुमिति:-The inferential knowledge of validity in the
inference. The form of inferential knowledge is "the inference is the means of valid knowledge, because it has the attribute which determines the state of being extraordinary cause of valid knowledge.

Page #40

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
अनुमाननिष्ठप्रामाण्यानुमितिहेत्वित्यनेन व्याप्तेरनुमानप्रामाण्योपपादकत्वकथनादनुमानप्रामाण्यनिरूपणानन्तरं व्याप्तिनिरूपणे उपोद्घात एव सङ्गतिः सूचिता । उपपादकत्वञ्च अत्र ज्ञापकत्वम् ।।
____ (२) केचित्तु-अनुमितिपदम् अनुमितिनिष्ठेतरभेदानुमितिपरम्,३ तथा चानुमितिनिष्ठेतरभेदानुमितौ यो हेतुः प्रागुक्तव्याप्तिप्रकारक
relevance in the form of introduction2 is indicated because of the statement the vyāpti brings out of the inference of the validity in inference. Here 'brings out' means 'brings out the knowledge(of validity of inference)
(2) Some of the logicians say the word “inferential knowledge' denotes the inferential knowledge of the difference from other things, in inferential knowledge”, therefore the meaning of the statment is the inferential knowledge of the difference from other things in the inferential knowledge which is a reason4 in the form of the state of being produced by the 2. उपोद्घात:-चिन्तां प्रकृतसिद्ध्यर्थामुपोद्घातं विदुर्बुधाः-Thinking for establishing
the thing; the discussion of which is started. 3. इतरभेदानुमिति:-The inferential knowledge of the difference from others.
The form of inferential knowledge is "the inferential knowledge is different from all other things because it is an instance of knowledge, which is different from recollection and which is produced by definite knowledge of concomitant reason existing in
the subject.” 4. अनुमितिहेतु-The reason in inferential cognition. The reason is “the
state of being produced by the knowledge of the concomitant reason existing in the subject, in this reason the concomitance is inclusive

Page #41

श्रीमथुरानाथकृतं व्याप्तिपञ्चकरहस्यम्
पक्षधर्मताज्ञानजन्यज्ञानत्वरूपः, तद्घटकं यद्व्याप्तिज्ञानं तदंशे विशेषणीभूता व्याप्तिः का ? इत्यर्थः, घटकत्वार्थकसप्तम्या तत्पुरुषसमासात् । तथा च प्रागुक्तानुमितिलक्षणोपोद्घात एव सङ्गतिः अनेन सूचिता इत्याहुः ।
(३) न तावदिति । तावत् वाक्यालङ्कारे, अव्यभिचरितत्वं अव्यभिचरितत्त्वपदप्रतिपाद्यम् । तत्र हेतुमाह तद्धीत्यादि । 'हि' यस्मात्, तत् अव्यभिचरितत्वपदप्रतिपाद्यम्, नेति सर्वस्मिन्नेव लक्षणे सम्बध्यते । तथा च व्याप्तिर्यतः साध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वादिरूपाव्यभिचरितत्वशब्दप्रतिपाद्यरूपा न, अतोऽव्यभिचरितत्वशब्दप्रतिपाद्यरूपा न इत्यर्थः
knowledge of the existence in the subject where early mentioned vyāpti is a qualifier, the constituent part of which is the knowledge of vyāpti, in that what is the qualifier vyāpti ? By the seventh case tatpuruṣa-compound which means the state of being constituent, Therefore early mentioned introduction relevance, only is indicated by the statement of Gangesa.
(3) Na tāvat here ‘tāvat word is used for the decoration of the sentence. The state of not having deviation means, denoted by the word state of having non deviation there author points out the reason by the expression tad-dhi.' 'hi' (means) yasmāt (from which) Here 'tat' means that which is denoted by the term not having deviation. The word 'not' is related with all definitions. Therefore, “because vyāpti is not in the form of non existence in that which has the absence of that which is to
part of reason, seventh case shows the inclusion of concomitance in the said reason of inferenial knowledge.

Page #42

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
पर्यवसितः। विशेषाऽभावकूटस्य सामान्याऽभावहेतुता च प्रसिद्धा एवेति, अत एतन्नञ् द्वयोपादानं न निरर्थकम् ।
be established,” denoted by the expression “the state of not having deviation” therefore it is not denoted by the term “the state of not having deviation,” this is a concluding menaning of the text. It is well-known fact that the collection of absence of particular things causes the absences of things in general, therefore the use of two negatives is not purposeless (in the definition). Non-occurrence (of the reason) in that which has
5. विशेषाभावकूटस्य-The collection of absences of particular things shows
absence of things in general. Vyāpti can't be the meaning of the word “non-deviation” because it is different from occurrence (of the reason) in the thing which has the absence of 'sādhya' etc. which are denoted by the word "state of having the absence of deviation.” The inheritable concomitance (vyāpti) is not meaning of the word, “the state of having the absence of deviation (avyabhicărita)” because it is different from collection of ‘non occurrence of reason in that thing which has the absence of that thing which is to be established (sādhya) etc.' which
is the meaning of the word, “state of being non-deviation.” 6. नद्वयोपादानं न निरर्थकम्-The use of two negative particles is not
purposeless, because the collection of absences of individual thing brings out the absence in general. The negation denotes absence of thing in general. The first negation denotes the difference in general which is the meaning of non-deviation (avyabhicaritatva) and the second negation brings out the collection of absences of particular things which is expressed by the words non-occurrence (of reason) in that thing which has absence of sādhya.

Page #43

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
(४) साध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वमिति 'वृत्तम्'" वृत्तिः । भावे
the absence of that which is to be established (this is the definition).
The First definition of vyapti.
(4) In this definiton (sādhyābhāvavadavrittitvam) vrittam?
7. q4-The state of being existent in that which has the absence of sādhya. In this definition "vrittam" means 'vrittitvam' occurrence. This is because the suffixes "kta" () "nistha" (g) is the word of "bhāva" (1) feature. The absence of existence is meant by the word "avrittam" (1974) which means the absence of occurrence. Non-existing of the reason in the thing which has the absence of that which is to be established (sādhya). The absence of the occurrence in that thing which has the absence of sadhya, this means the absence of occurrence (of reason) indicated by the substratum of the absence of that which is to be established, that absence of occurrence where it is found that reason is called valid reason.
On the basis of suffixes "in" which is used in the sense of "matup" (4g) existing in that which has the absence of sadhya is substratum. The feature of the reason is the existence in the substratum of the absence of sadhya. Therefore according to old naiyāyikās the meaning of the definition is "the state of having the absence of occurrence (of reason) in the locus of the absence of that which is to be established (sādhya.) This interpretation of old naiyāyikās is not admissable, because it goes against the theory of grameriaans. According to them after Karmadhāraya (4) compound the suffix which denotes "matup" (locus) should not be used while "bahuvrihi" (gif) compound

Page #44

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
is expressed to derive the meaning of sentence, therefore the word "mahādhana” (HETETA) is not correct, because the "mahādhana” (huge wealth) is a 'karmadhāraya' compound and after this compound that suffixes which denotes the locus can't be used if the compound bahuvrihi in the form who has money Mahādhanin (HETERED) as justifies prospect to know the meaning of the sentence. Therefore to convey the said meaning the word, “mahādhana” is used and not ‘mahādhanī. Though in the sentence “sādhyābhāvavadvritti” (FTE2410agafa) there is not “karmadhāraya” compound, there is not avyayībhāva (37alstuta) compound, hence therefore there is no objection for the use suffixes which means locus, but in the expression of the rule in the word karmadhāraya is used in the sense of the compound which is different from bahuvrīhi. Therefore avyayıbhāva compound also is included as different from bahuvrihi. So like karmadhāraya compound, after avyayībhāva compound, also there would not be use of suffixes which dentoes locus. This is very well clarified in the text 'Guna-Prakāśa Rahasyam' (Tuch9RE214) and its commentary ‘Dīdhiti-Rahasyam' (Girardel) While clearing ‘Aguņavattva’. (37100ta), here it should be noted on the basis of the interpritition 'गुणस्याभावोऽगुणं तद् यत्रास्ति स 31Juala 41a: 3710TH' The absence of quality is non-quality, that where exists, that is the locus of non-quality, the nature of it is state of having non-quality. The state of having non-quality can't be a common feature of categories beginning from quality, because the absence of quality has incomplete occurrence, it exists in substance also, in the first moment of the origination of substance. Therefore by the word karmadhāraya in the order of grammer the compounds, other than bahuvrīhi should be understood. The word aguna which is avyayıbhāva compound, therefore with that compound passive-s uffixes can't be used. Therefore early mentioned multiform of bahuvrīhi compound

Page #45

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
निष्ठाप्रत्ययात्, वृत्तस्याऽभावः अवृत्तम् वृत्त्यभाव इति यावत्, साध्याऽभाववतोऽवृत्तं साध्याभाववदवृत्तम् साध्याभावववृत्त्यभाव इति यावत् । तद्यत्रास्ति स साध्याभाववदवृत्ती मत्वर्थीयेन्प्रत्ययात्, तस्य भावः साध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वम् । तथा च साध्याभाववद्वत्त्यभाववत्त्वमिति फलितमिति
means vritti (existence), because here the suffix of the past passive particle, ‘kta’ is called in the Sanskrit grammar as ‘nişthā' which is used in the sense of 'bhāva' mentioned. The absence of vritta' in avrittitam ‘yrityabhāva.’ ‘sādhyābhāvavataḥ-avrittam' means ‘sādhyābhāvavadavrittam' which means the absence of existence
can't be accepted. Instead of that form of यत्र स गुणवान्, न गुणवान् अगुणवान्, तस्य भावः अगुणवत्त्वम् compound 'where is that which has quality, which has no quality that is the locus of non-quality. This form of bahuvrīhi compound should be accepted. The mutual absence has no incomplete occurrence, therefore the aguņavattva does not exist in the substance which is produced. All this in mentioned clearly in that work. If this rule is not accepted then other says that with the meaning of word used with avyayībhāva compound the semantic connection of the meaning of the word which is not the part of avyayıbhāva compound is disapproved. Therefore upakumbha (3455+47) and agha-a (37817) being in avyayībhāva compound. can't be connected by semantic connection with the word 'bhutal etc, which is not included as a part in that compound. There fore 'the nearness of a jar which is in the groundthis meaning should be understood, but according to the rule it can't be the meaning. According to the rule, “the nearness which is in the ground of a jar and the absence which is in the ground of a jar will be the meaning, means the ground will be connected with nearness and absence by symantic connection, which is not desired to be stated”

Page #46

१०
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
प्राञ्चः।
तदसत् 'न कर्मधारयान्मत्वर्थीयो बहुव्रीहिश्चेदर्थप्रतिपत्तिकर' इत्यनुशासनविरोधात् । तत्र कर्मधारयपदस्य बहुव्रीहीतरसमासपरत्वात्, तच्च अगुणवत्त्वमिति साधर्म्यव्याख्यानावसरे गुणप्रकाशरहस्ये तद्दीधितिरहस्ये च स्फुटम् । अव्ययीभावसमासोत्तरपदार्थेन समं तत्समासानिविष्टपदार्थान्तरान्वयस्याव्युत्पन्नत्वात् । यथा भूतलोपकुम्भं भूतलेऽघटमित्यादौ भूतलवृत्तिघटसमीपतदत्यन्ताऽभावयोरप्रतीतेः ।
of reason in that which has the absence of that which is to be established, that absence where exists that is non-existent in that which has the absence of that which is to be established. This is because of suffix in the sense of matup, 'the nature of it is the nonexistence (of the reason) in that which has the absence of that which is to be established the state of having the absence of the existent, in that which has the absence of that which is to be established, is the resulted meaning, according to old logicians.
This is not correct because it contradicts the rule, “if bahurvīhi compound expresses the same meaning then the possessive suffix (matvarthīya) is not used after karmadhāraya compound.” Here the word karmadhāraya is used in the sense of all compounds other than bahuvrīhi compound. This is clearly mentioned by author in Guņaprakāśa-rahasya and in Dīdhiti-rahasya of it on the occasion of explanation of common properties (when) discussing the term the state of not having quality (agunavatva), because, with the meaning of the word next to avyayibhāva compound the connection of the meaning of the word, which is not included (as a part) in that

Page #47

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
(५) एतेन वृत्तेरभावोऽवृत्तीत्यव्ययीभावानन्तरं साध्याभाववतोऽवृत्तिः यत्रेति- बहुव्रीहिरित्यपि प्रत्युक्तं, वृत्तौ साध्याभाववतोऽनन्वयापत्तेः । अव्ययीभावसमासस्याऽव्ययतया तेन समं समासान्तारासम्भवाच्च । नजुपाध्यादिरूपाऽव्ययविशेषाणामेव समस्यस्यामानत्वेन
compound, is prohibited. Just as in the case 'bhutal upakumbham' 'bhutale gha-am' 'near the pot existing in the ground' and the ‘absolute absence of that,' both of them are not apprehended.
(5) By this way, vritterabhāvo avrītti after this avyayıbhāva compound ‘sādhyābhāvavato avrittiḥ yatra’ this bahuvrīhi compound8 also is discarded because of the non applicability of the sementic connection of that which has the absence of that which is to be established with existing (vritti), and because the avyayībhāva compound is an avyava therefore there would not be connection of other compound, negative adjuncts which are particular avyaya are counted as to be
8. वृत्तेरभावोऽवृत्तिः इत्यव्ययीभावानन्तरं साध्याभाववतोऽवृत्तिर्यत्र The absence of
occurrence is non-occurance this ‘avyayıbhāva' compound, where non-occurant from that would not be semantic connection of that which has the absence of sādhya with occurrent. Another difficulty also arrises here, that because of the avyayibhāva compound is avyaya and with these, there would not be semantic connection of other compound. Here avritti is avyaya, with this there would not be use of tatpurusa (तत्पुरुष) compound of sadhyābhāva. (साध्याभाव), with avyaya only avyayıbhāva compound only can be used, not with any other compound. Here 'avritti' absence of occurrence is an 'avyaya.'

Page #48

१२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
परिगणितत्वात् ।
(६) वस्तुतस्तु साध्याभाववतो न वृत्तिः यत्र इति त्रिपदव्यधिकरणबहुव्रीह्युत्तरं त्वप्रत्ययः, साध्याभाववत इत्यत्र निरूपितत्वं षष्ठ्यर्थः, अन्वयश्चास्य वृत्तौ । तथा च साध्याभावाधिकरणनिरूपितवृत्त्यभाववत्त्वम् अव्यभिचरितत्वमिति फलितम् । न च व्यधिकरणबहुव्रीहिः ९ सर्वत्र असाधुरिति वाच्यम्, अयं हेतुः साध्याभाववदवृत्तिरित्यादौ
compounded.
(6) Indeed ‘sādhyābhavavato na vrittih yatra iti tripadavyadhikaraṇabahuvrīhyuttaram tvapratyayah', in 'sādhyābhāvavataḥ' the state of being described, is the meaning of relational case, it is semantically connected with vritti (existence). Therefore the resulted meaning is that the state of having the absence of the existence indicated by the substratum of the absence of that which is to be established, is the state of not having deviation. It should not be objected that the usage of bahuvrihi-compound is not correct in all cases because in the sentences, like 'ayam hetuh sādhyābhāvavadavritti' etc., the usage of vyadhikaraṇa-bahuvrīhi compound is justified here
9. Vyadhikaranbahuvrīhi (व्यधिकरणबहुव्रीहि: ) - The bahuvrīhi compound where words which denote qualification and qualifier can't be expressed with same case. In the sentence sadhyabhavadavrittitvam (साध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वम्) there are three words "sadhyabhāvavatah” (साध्याभाववतः) ‘na’ (न) and ‘vrittitvam.' (वृत्तित्वम्) They are not expressed with same case. The qualification sādhyābhāvavataḥ has sixth case ending. The word 'na' is avyaya and word 'vritti' has first case ending.

Page #49

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
व्यधिकरणबहुव्रीहिं विना गत्यन्तराभावेन अत्रापि व्यधिकरणबहुव्रीहे: साधुत्वात् ।
(७) साध्याभावाधिकरणवृत्त्यभावश्च१० तादृशवृत्तित्वसामान्या
also due to lack of any other way to explain the definition.
(7) The absence of existence (of the reason) in the substratum of the absence that which is to be established10
10. साध्याभावाधिकरणवृत्त्यभावः-The absence of occurrence described by the
locus of the absence of sādhya should be known as the absence of occurrence in general. It means the absence which has counterpositive-ness which is not determined by the characteristic which is different from the state of being occurrence (vrittitvam) and determined by the state of being occurrence and that occurrence which is described by the locus of the absence of sādhya with the reference to the inference, “the mountain has fire because it has smoke,” the absence of occurence which is indicated by water etc. which are substratum of the absence of fire, exists in the reason
smoke.
If the absence in the general sāmānyābhāva (TART ) is not understood by the word absence of occurrence, there would be fault of over-extension with regards such as inference “this (mountain) has smoke because it has fire,” by the words absence of occurrence indicated by the locus water which is the locus of the absence of sadhya smoke, also understood and the absence of that occurrence which is described by water etc. exists in the fire which is used as a reason. Therefore there is fault of over-extension (ativyāpti). Similarly, by the word the absence of occurrence indicated by the

Page #50

१४
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
भावो बोध्यः । तेन धूमवान् वर्तरित्यादौ धूमाभाववज्जलहृदादिवृत्त्यभावस्य धूमाभाववद्वृत्तित्वजलत्वोभयत्वावच्छिन्नाभावस्य च वह्नौ सत्त्वेऽपि न
should be known as the absence of such existence, in general, therefore there is no fault of too wide application in the inference 'this has smoke because of fire' though the absence of existence of reason in waterlake etc. which have the absence of that which is to be established, and the absence which is determined by the state of being both waster-ness and existence indicated by that which has the absence of smoke that which is to be established, abides in the fire. And existent, indicated by that which has the absence of that which is to be established, should be mentioned by the relation which determines the state
locus of the absence of sādhya we understand the absence as both that occurrence and waterhood, that absence of both also exists in the reason fire. Though the occurrence which is indicated by the locus hot-iron-ball is subsist in fire but waterhood does not subsist in fire. Therefore there is absence of both that occurrence and waterhood, hence there is fault of over-extension, with regards to the inference, 'it has smoke because of fire. Therefore the absence of occurrence in general is understood by the words the absence of occurrence, so there would not be over-extension with regards to the inherence “it has smoke because of fire,' by the word absence of occurrence in general. The absence of occurrence indicated by hotiron ball also understood, and that occurrence exists in fire, so there is not the absence of occurrence in the fire, hence there would not be over-extension.

Page #51

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
१५
अतिव्याप्तिः ।
साध्याऽभाववद्वृत्तिश्च हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन ११ विवक्षणीया, तेन वह्न्यभाववति धूमावयवे जलहदादौ च समवायेन कालिकविशेषणतादिना च धूमस्य वृत्तावपि न क्षतिः ।
(८) साध्याभावश्च साध्यतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नसाध्यतावच्छेदकावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताको बोध्यः । तेन वह्निमान् धूमादित्यादौ समवायादिसम्बन्धेन वह्निसामान्याभाववति संयोगसम्बन्धेन, तत्तद्वह्नि
of being a reason, therefore there is no fault of too narrow application in respect of the inference, 'this has fire because of smoke' though smoke exists in water lake etc. and the part of smoke, which have the absence of fire, by the temporal relation and inherence relation11 respectively.
(8) The absence of that which is to be established should be known as having the counter-positive-ness of which is determined by that which determines the state of being that which is to be established, and as well determined by the relation which determines that which is to be established, therefore there is not the fault of too narrow application in the inference, 'this has fire because of smoke', even though smoke exists in that which has the absence of fire in general, by the relation inherence, and in that which has the absence determined by the state of being both water and fire as well by the state of being a particular fire, by the relation conjunction.
11. हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्ध:-The relation that determines the state of being reason is stated to be the determinant relation of state of being
reason.

Page #52

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
त्ववह्निजलोभयत्वाद्यवच्छिन्नाभाववति च पर्वतादौ संयोगेन धूमस्य वृत्तावपि न क्षतिः ।
___ (९) ननु तथापि गुणत्ववान् ज्ञानत्वात्, सत्तावान् जातेरित्यादौ विषयित्वाव्याप्यत्वादिसम्बन्धेन'३ तादृशसाध्याऽभाववति ज्ञानादौ
(9) Even though there is a fault of too narrow application in the inferences such as “this has quality-ness because it has the state of being knowledge” and “this has existence because of universal,' because the state of being knowledge, exists in knowledge etc. which is the locus of the absence of qualitiness, and existence exists in the substance by the relations such as subject-ness12, state of being non pervaded13 etc. where “jati' exists.
Nor it should be said that the substratum-ness of the absence of that which is to be established is to be mentioned by
12. Visayitva (fagfyra) Because the knowledge has object. That object
exists in the knowledge by the relation "visayita” for example="This
is a pot' in this knowledge the pot subsists by the relation “visayita”. 13. 3724|
4q-athraagfoca: The occurrence in that which has the absence of that particular. The relation in the form of ‘non-pervadness' by this relation with regard the inference. 'it has existence because it has generic attribute.' Here the absence of sādhya existence is located in the quality by this relation ‘non-pervadness' quality is not pervaded by the absence of existence. Therefore the absence of existence subsists in the quality by this relation and in quality generic attribute exists. Therefore there is fault of too narrow application in the valid reason.

Page #53

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
१७
ज्ञानत्वजात्यादेर्वर्तमानत्वाद् अव्याप्तिः । न च साध्याभावाधिकरणत्वम् अभावीयविशेषणताविशेषसम्बन्धेन विवक्षितमिति वाच्यम् । तथा सति घटत्वात्यन्ताभाववान् घटान्योन्याभाववान् वा पटत्वादित्यादौ साध्याभावस्य घटत्वादेविशेषणताविशेषसम्बन्धेनाधिकरणस्य अप्रसिद्धयाऽव्याप्तेरिति चेत् न, अत्यन्ताभावान्योन्याभावयोरत्यन्ताभावस्य सप्तमपदार्थस्वरूपत्वात् ।१४ अत्यन्ताभावान्योन्याभावयोरत्यन्ता
the relation of particular qualifier-ness belonging to the absence. This is because there would be a fault of too narrow application in the inference; 'this has the absoulte absence of pot-ness or mutual absence of a pot because of cloth-ness. This is because the substratum of the absence of that which is to be established which is pot-ness is not established by the relation of particular subject-ness.
It is not correct, because the absolute absence of both absolute absence and mutual absence are indicated with qualifireness belonging to the absence is in the form of the seventh category14 (absence) of entities. But if someone holds the opinion that the absolute absence of absolute absence and
14. सप्तमपदार्थस्वरूपत्वात्-Because it is in the form of seventh category some
logicians say “the absence of the absence of a pot is identical with the pot. The negative of negative shows positive.” This is the idea behind this concept. But others say-because the absence has been accepted a separate category by Naiyāyika. Therefore the absence of absence is also a separate category. It is not identical with positive
thing.

Page #54

१८
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
भावस्य प्रतियोग्यादिस्वरूपत्वनये तु साध्यतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नसाध्यतावच्छेदकावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकसाध्याभाववृत्तिसाध्यसामान्यीयप्रतियोगितावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन साध्याभावाधिकरणत्वं वक्तव्यम् ।।
__ (१०) वृत्त्यन्तं प्रतियोगिताविशेषणं, तादृशसम्बन्धश्च वह्निमान् धूमादित्यादिभावसाध्यकस्थले विशेषणताविशेष एव, घटत्वाभाववान् पटत्वादित्याद्यभावसाध्यकस्थले तु समवायादिरेव । समवायविषयित्वादिसम्बन्धेन प्रमेयादिसाध्यके ज्ञानत्वादिहेतौ साध्यतावच्छेदक
mutual absence is form of its counter-positive etc. The state of being substratum of the absence of that which is to be established should be known as determined by the relation which determines the counter positive-ness in general of that which is to be established, existing in the absence of that which is to be established, in general counter positive-ness of which is determined by the attribute and the relation which determines the state of being that which is to be established.
___ (10) The part of the sentence ending with existing' is a qualifier of the counter-positive-ness, such a relation in the case of the inference this has fire because of smoke' where that which is to be established is a positive entity is a particular qualifier-ness alone, and in the inference 'this has the absence of pot-ness because of cloth-ness' where that which is to be established is a negative entity, is inherence etc.
The word 'in general, is used to avoid the fault of too narrow application in the inference where knowable etc. is

Page #55

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
समवायादिसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नप्रमे याद्यभावस्य कालिकादिसम्बन्धेन योऽभावः सोऽपि प्रमेयतया साध्यान्तर्गतस्तदीयप्रतियोगिताऽवच्छेदककालिकादिसम्बन्धेन साध्याऽभावाऽधिकरणे ज्ञानत्वादेर्वृत्तेरव्याप्तिवारणाय सामान्यपदोपादानम् ।
(११) साध्यसामान्यीयत्वञ्च यावत्साध्यनिरूपितत्वं स्वानिरूपकसाध्यकभिन्नत्वमिति यावत् । अस्यैकोक्तिमात्रपरतया गौरवस्यादोषत्वात् ,
(१२) अनुमितिकारणतावच्छेदके च भावसाध्यकस्थले
that which is to be established, by the relation inherence, subject-ness etc. and where knowledge-ness is the reason, because the absence by temporal relation, of the absence of knowable determined by the relation inherence etc. which determines the state of being that which is to be established, that also is in the form of knowable, so it is inculded in to that which is to be established, by the temporal relation which determines the counter-positive-ness of that, knowledge-ness exists in the substratum of the absence of that which is to be established.
___(11) In general means state of being described by all those to be established. The state of being different from that which belongs to that which is to be estalished, which is not indicator of that (counter-positive-ness). This is the concluded meaning. Due to the excellence of being expressed only by one utterance there is no fault of cumbersome-ness.
(12) And in the inference where that which is to be established, is a positive entity the state of being the substratum

Page #56

२०
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
अभावीयविशेषणताविशेषेण साध्याऽभावाधिकरणत्वम् अभावसाध्यकस्थले च यथायथं समवायादिसम्बन्धेन साध्याभावाधिकरणत्वमुपादेय । साध्यभेदेन कार्यकारणभावभेदात् ।
(१३) न च तथापि घटाऽन्योन्याभाववान् पटत्वादित्यत्राऽन्योन्याभावसाध्यकस्थले घटत्वादिरूपे साध्याऽभावे न साध्यप्रतियोगित्वं, न वा समवायादिसम्बन्धस्तदवच्छेदकः तादात्म्यस्यैव
of the absence of that which is to be established is by the relation a particular qualifierness, belonging to absence, and in the inference where the negative entity is that which is to be established, there the state of being substratum of the absence of that which is to be established, should be taken by the relation inherence etc. as available, this is because the causeeffect relationship is different due to difference in that which is to be established.
(13) Even it should not be mentioned, that-there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference "this has the mutual absence of pot because of clothness" where the mutual absence is that which is to be established, where the absence of that which is to be established, is in the form of pot-ness, has no counterpositiveness of that which is to be established, and nor the inherence relation is determinant of that counter-positive-ness because the identity relation alone is determinant of that (counterpositive-ness). This is because the absence of the absolute absence is identical with counter-positive so the mutual absence of a pot is in the form of the absence which has conuter-positive-ness determined by the state of being absolute absence of mutual

Page #57

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
२१
तदवच्छेदकत्वादित्यव्याप्तिस्तदवस्थेति वाच्यम् । अत्यन्ताभावाभावस्य प्रतियोगिरूपत्वेन घटभेदस्य घटभेदात्यन्ताभावत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकाभावरूपतया घटभेदात्यन्ताभावरूपस्य घटभेदप्रतियोगितावच्छेदकीभूतघटत्वस्यापि समवायसम्बन्धेन घटभेदप्रतियोगित्वात् ।
____ (१४) न चान्यत्रात्यन्ताभावाभावस्य प्रतियोगिरूपत्वेऽपि घटादिभेदात्यन्ताभावत्वावच्छिन्नाभावो न घटादिभेदस्वरूपः, किन्तु तत्प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकीभूतघटत्वात्यन्ताभावस्वरूप एवेति सिद्धान्त इति वाच्यम् । यथा हि घटत्वावच्छिन्नघटवत्ताग्रहे घटात्यन्ताऽभावाग्रहात्
absence, hence pot-ness which is determinant of the counterpositive-ness of the mutual absence of pot which is in the form of absolute absence of mutual absene of pot, also is the counterpositive of the mutual absence of a pot by the relation inherence.
(14) It should not be argued that though in other cases the absence of absence is identical with counter-positive but the absence determined by the state of being absolute absence of mutual absence of the pot, is not identical with the mutual absence of the pot, but it is identical with the absolute absence of potness which is the determinant of counter-positive-ness of that, only this is the admitted theory. This is because just as when there is the knowledge of the existence of that which is determined by pot-ness, the knowledge of the absoulte absence of pot does not arise and the usage of the absence of the absolute absence takes place. Therefore the absence of the absolute absence of a pot is identical with a pot, similarly when there is the knowledge of the existence of the mutual absence

Page #58

२२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
घटात्यन्ताभावाभावव्यवहाराच्च घटात्यन्ताऽभावाभावो घटस्वरूपः तथा घटभेदवत्ताग्रहे घटभेदात्यन्ताभावाग्रहात् घटभेदात्यन्ताभावाभावव्यवहाराच्च, घटभेद एव तदत्यन्ताभावत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकाभाव इति तत्सिद्धान्तः न युक्तिसहः इति । विनिगमकाभावेनापि घटत्वत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकात्यन्ताभाववद् घटभेदस्यापि घटभेदात्यन्ताभावाभावत्वसिद्धेरप्रत्यूहत्वाच्च ।
(१५) अत एव तादृशसिद्धान्तो न उपाध्यायसम्मतः । अत एव च अभावविरहात्मत्वं वस्तुनः प्रतियोगितेत्याचार्याः ।
१५
-
of a pot, the knowledge of the absolute absence of the mutual absence of a pot does not arise and there is such a usage of the absence of absolute absecne of the mutual absence of the pot. Therefore the mutual absence of a pot alone is identical with the absence which has the counter-positive-ness determined by the state of being absolute absence of that, this theory has no proof and due to absence of clinching argument also like the absolute absence which has the counter-positive-ness determined by potness-ness the mutual absence of the pot also has the state of being absence of the absolute absence of the mutual absence of pot, because it is not contradicted. Therefore such a theory is not acceptable for Upadhyāya.
(15) Therefore ācārya says 'the state of being absence of absence is identical with counter-positive-ness'. Otherwise there would be a fault of too narrow application in the mutual
15. अभावविरहात्मत्वं वस्तुनः प्रतियोगिता - The counter-positive-ness is identical with the absence of the absence of a thing.

Page #59

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
२३
अन्यथा घटभेदात्यन्ताभावप्रतियोगिनि घटभेदे तल्लक्षणाव्याप्त्यापत्तेः, अन्योन्याभावप्रतियोगितावच्छेदकघटत्वात्यन्ताभावे तल्लक्षणस्याति
व्याप्त्यापत्तेश्च।
(१६) न चैवं घटत्वत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकघटत्वात्यन्ताभावस्यापि घटभेदस्वरूपत्वापत्तिरिति वाच्यम् । तदत्यन्ताभावत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगाकाभावस्यैव तत्स्वरूपत्वाभ्युपगमात् तद्वत्ताग्रहे तादृशतदत्यन्ताभावाभावस्यैव व्यवहारात् । उपाध्यायैर्घटत्वत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकघटत्वात्यन्ताभावस्यापि घटभेदस्वरूपत्वाऽभ्युपगमाच्च ।
(१७) न चैवं साध्यसामान्यीयप्रतियोगितावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेनैव
absence of a pot which is the counter-positive of the absolute absence the mutual absence of the pot and there would be a fault of too wide application in the absolute absence of pot-ness which is the determinant of the counter-positive-ness of the mutual absence.
(16) It should not be argued that in this way the absence of potness which has counter-positive-ness determined by potness-ness also would be identical with the mutual absence of a pot. This is because the absence which has counter-positive-ness determined by the state of being absolute absence of that alone is accepted identical with that, because when the existence of that thing is known there is the usage of the absence of the absolute absence of such thing, and because Upadhyāya has accepted the absoulte absence of potness which has the counter-positive-ness determined by potness-ness, also identical with the mutual absence of the pot.
(17) Nor it should be argued that let be said the state of

Page #60

२४
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
साध्याभावाधिकरणत्वं विवक्ष्यतां किं साध्यतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नसाध्याभाववृत्तित्वस्य प्रतियोगिताविशेषणत्वेनेति वाच्यम् । कालिकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नात्मकत्वप्रकारक प्रमाविशेष्यत्वाभावस्य विशेषणता
being substratum of the absence of that which is to be established by the relation which determines the counterpositive-ness of that which is to be established in general, why the counter-positiveness should be qualified by the existence in the absence of that which is to be established, which (existence) is determined by the relation which determines the state of being that which is to be established. This is because, otherewise there would be a fault of too narrow application, in the inference and where the absence of the substrata-ness of the valid knowledge which has soulness as a qualifier, determined by the temporal relation, is that which is to be established by the relation of self some-ness and soul-ness16 is
16. आत्मत्वप्रकारकेति - When the occurrence in the absence of sādhya determined by the relation of determinant of the state of being sādhya is applied with the counter-positive-ness. There would not be fault of too narrow application because the sadhya which is in the form of the absence of subjectness of the valid knowledge where soulness is qualifier and the counter-positive-ness of which is determined by the temporal relation. The absence of that sadhya, counter-positive-ness of which is determined by the selfsome relation, is the absence is sadhya counter-positive-ness of which is determined by the relation of the detarminant of the state of being sadhya. The counter-positive-ness which exists in that absence is indicated by sādhya in the form of the absence of objectness of valid knowledge

Page #61

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
२५
विशेषेण साध्यत्वे आत्मत्वादिहेतावव्याप्त्यापत्तेः । कालिकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नसाध्याभावस्य विशेषणताविशेषसम्बन्धेन योऽभावस्तस्यापि साध्यस्वरूपतया कालिकसम्बन्धवद्विशेषणताविशेषोऽपि साध्यीयप्रतियोगितावच्छेदकसम्बन्धस्तेन सम्बन्धेनाऽऽत्मत्वप्रकारकप्रमाविशेष्यत्वरूपसाध्याभाववति आत्मनि हेतोरात्मत्वस्य वृत्तेः ।
(१८) प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकवत् प्रतियोग्यपि अन्योन्याभावाभावः,
the reason. This is because the absence by self-some-ness, of the absence of that which is to be established, the counter-positiveness of which is determined by the temporal relation, is also identical with that which is to be established, therefore like the temporal relation the selfsome-ness relation also is the determinant relation of the counter-positive-ness belonging to that which is to be established, by this relation, in the soul which is substratum of the absence of that which is to be established, in the form of sustratum-ness of the valid knowledge which has soulness as a qualifier, soul-ness exists.
(18) The absence of the mutual absence is in the form of counter-positive also accepted like in the form of the determinant of conter-positive-ness, therefore there is no nonestablishment of the counter-positive-ness of that which is to be
where soulness is qualifier. The counter-positive-ness is determined by the temporal relation, by this relation in the locus of the absence of sadhya which is the objectness of valid knowledge, where soulness is qualifier (the locus) is the produced thing where soulness does not
occur.

Page #62

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
तेन तादात्म्यसम्बन्धेन साध्यतायां१७ साध्यतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नसाध्याभाववृत्तिसाध्यसामान्यीयप्रतियोगित्वस्य नाप्रसिद्धिः । इत्थञ्च अत्यन्ताभावत्वनिरूपितत्वेनापि साध्यसामान्यीयप्रतियोगिता
established, which exists in the absence of that which is to be established and determined by the relation which determines the state of being that which is to be established, when some thing is made as that which is to be established by the relation identity.17 In this way, the counter-positive-ness of that which is to be established in genral should be made qualified by the state of being described by the state of being absoulte absence, otherewise there would be a fault of too narrow application in the inference; "this has the mutual absence of pot because of pot-ness-ness' because the relation identity also is the
17. JIGITA HEZR14-Where sādhya is desired by identity relation. The
form of inference-knowable has difference from jar by identity relation because it has individuality'. Here the counter-positive-ness which exists in the difference from jar which is sādhya, the absence of sādhya which is identical with the difference from the difference from jar, has no the counter-positive-ness which is indicated by sādhya mainly difference from jar. So how can the difference from jar is identical with the absence of difference from difference from jar ? Therefore other says the absence of difference also identical with counter-positive like the determinant of counter-positve-ness. Therefore there is not nonestablishment of counter-positive-ness in general existing in the absence of sādhya, counter-positive-ness of which is determined by the relation which controls the state of being sādhya.

Page #63

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
२७
विशेषणीया । अन्यथा घटान्योन्याभाववान् घटत्वत्वादित्यादौ अव्याप्त्यापत्तेः । तादात्म्यसम्बन्धस्यापि साध्याभाववृत्तिसाध्यीयप्रतियोगितावच्छेदकत्वात्८ ।
determinant of the counter-positive-ness18 of that which is to be established which exists in the absence of that which is to be established.
18. caff-Determinant of counter-positive-ness. The absence of difference from jar is the absence of sadhya which is identical with jar. The counter-positive-ness which exists in the jar is indicated by the difference from jar which (difference) is the sadhya the determinant relation of this counter-positive-ness is identity, by this relation the locus of absence of the difference from jar which is counter-positive-ness is jarness itself, there jarness-ness which is reason exists, therefore there is fault of too narrow application. When the counter-positive-ness is qualified by the state of being indicated by absolute absence, there would not be fault of too narrow application because the identity is determinant relation of the counter-positive-ness of difference and identity relation is not determinant of counterpositive-ness of the absolute absence. The inherence etc. will be determinant relation of counter-positive-ness which is indicated by absolute absence and by this relation the locus of the absence of sādhya which is jarness is jar where jarness-ness does not exist, therefore there is no occurrence, hence there is no fault of too narrow application. Thus when the absence of mutual absence is accepted as indentical with counter-positive, the counter-positive-ness should be qualified with state of being indicated by absolute absence. If it is accepted identical with the determinant of counter-positive-ness, there

Page #64

२८
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
(१९) यद्वा साध्यतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नसाध्याभाववृत्तिसाध्यसामान्यीयनिरूक्तप्रतियोगित्वतदवच्छेदकत्वान्यतरावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेनैव साध्याभावाधिकरणत्वं विवक्षणीयम् । वृत्त्यन्तमन्यतरविशेषणम् । एवञ्च घटान्योन्याभाववान् पटत्वादित्यादौ साध्याऽभावस्य घटत्वादेः साध्यीयप्रतियोगित्वविरहेऽपि न क्षतिः, तादृशान्यतरस्य साध्यीयप्रतियोगितावच्छेदकत्वस्यैव तत्र सत्त्वात् ।।
(19) Or it should be desired to be mentioned that the state of being substratum of the absence of that which is to be established by the relation which determined either said counter-positive-ness of that which is to be established in general, existing in the absence of that which is to be established, determined by the relation which determines the state of being that which is to be established, or the state of being determinant of that counter-positive-ness. The sentence ending with existing' is the qualifier of 'one of two.'
In this way, there is no harm even though in the inference this has the mutual absence of pot because of clothness' The counter-positive-ness of that which is to be established does not exist in pot-ness which is identical the absence of that which is to be established, because one of them the state of being determinant of the counter-positive-ness of
would not be a fault of for narrow application, when the absence of difference from jar is identical with jarness, the counter-positive-ness which is indicated by the absence of the absence of jar, the determinant relation of that counter-positive-ness will be inherence relation and not
identity relation.

Page #65

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
___ (२०) न च तथापि कपिसंयोगी१९ एतद्वक्षत्वादित्याद्यव्याप्यवृत्तिसाध्यकसद्धेतौ अव्याप्तिरिति वाच्यम् । निरुक्तसाध्याऽभावत्वविशिष्टनिरूपिता या निरुक्तसम्बन्धसंसर्गकनिरवच्छिन्नाधिकरणता तदाश्रयावृत्तित्वस्य विवक्षितत्वात् । गुणकर्मान्यत्वविशिष्टसत्त्वाऽभाववान्
that which is to be established alone exists there.
(20) Even though it should not be argued that-there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference; 'this has the conjunction of monkey19 because of this tree-ness' where that which is to be established has partial existence, this is because the non-existence in that which has the substratum-ness which is not determined by any characteristic, having determined by mentioned relation and which is described by that which is qualified by the mentioned state of being the absence of that which is to be established, is desired to be said. Therefore there is no fault of too narrow application in the inference “this has the absence of existence qualified by the difference from quality and action because of quality-ness,” even though the substratum-ness of the absence of that which is to be
19. after it (Kapi-samyogi) Having conjunction of monkey. In that tree
which is locus of the absence of conjunction of monkey limited by root, there that tree-ness exists, therefore there is fault of too narrow application. When occurrence in the locus of the substratum-ness which is not determined by any characteristic is maintained, there would not be fault of too narrow application, because in this case the locus of the substratumness which is not determined by anything will be quality etc. where that treeness does not exist.

Page #66

३०
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
गुणत्वादित्यादौ सत्त्वात्मकसाध्याभावाधिकरणत्वस्य गुणादिवृत्तित्वेऽपि साध्याभावत्वविशिष्टनिरूपिताधिकरणत्वस्य२° गुणाद्यवृत्तित्वान्नाऽव्याप्तिः ।
(२१) न चैवं कपिसंयोगाभाववान् सत्त्वाद् इत्यादौ निरवच्छिन्नसाध्याऽभावाऽधिकरणत्वाऽप्रसिद्ध्याऽव्याप्तिरिति वाच्यम्, केवला
established which (absence) is in the form of existence, exists in quality because the substratum-ness which is described by that which is qualified by the state of being absence of that which is to be established 20, dose not exist in quality etc.
(21) Nor it should be argued that-in this way there would be a fault of too narrow application in the inference,
20. साध्याभावत्वविशिष्टनिरूपिताधिकरणत्वस्य-Here sādhya is in the form of state
of being existence, which is qualified by the difference from quality and action, but qualified is not different from unqualified. Therefore the existence (sattā) which is qualified by the difference from quality and action is not different from the existence which is not qualified by difference from quality and action. So the absence sādhya here is the absence of absence of unqualified existence which is located in quality etc. where qualitiness exists. Therefore there is fault of too narrow application. But when the locusness is maintained as indicated by that which is qualified by state of being absence of sādhya, there would not be fault of too narrow application. This is because in this case of inference, quality has not such substantive-ness which is determined by the state of being absence of sādhya which is in the form of the existance is qualified by the difference from quality and action. This is the experience that there is no "existence” which is qualified by the difference from quality and action in quality.

Page #67

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
न्वयिनि अभावादित्यनेन ग्रन्थकृतैवास्य दोषस्य वक्ष्यमाणत्वात् ।
(२२) न च तथापि कपिसंयोगिभिन्नं२१ गुणत्वादित्यादौ निरवच्छिन्नसाध्याभावाधिकरणत्वाऽप्रसिद्धयाऽव्याप्तिः, अन्योन्याभावस्य व्याप्यवृत्तित्वनियमवादिनये तस्य केवलान्वय्यनन्तर्गतत्वादिति वाच्यम् ।
“this has the absence of the conjunction of monkey because of existence'. This is because the substratum-ness of the absence of that which is to be established, which is not determined by any property is not established, because this fault is desired to be mentioned by author himself by the expression there is absence of it, in pure affirmative inference'
(22) Nor it should be said-yet there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference 'this is different form that which has the conjunction of monkey21 because of quality-ness' This is because the non-determined substratum-ness of the absence of that which is to be established is not established, because in the opinion of those who accept mutual absence always non-partial-existent22 it is not included into pure affirmative. This is because, though in the opinion of those who believe the mutual absence as non-partial existent the absolute absence of another type of mutual absence is identical with the
21. कपिसंयोगिभिन्नम्-Different from that which has the conjunction of
monkey. Here the difference from that which has the conjunction of monkey is sādhya. The absence of sādhya is in the form of
conjunction which is determinant of counter- positive-ness. 22. 2114ad14-Complete occurrence, means that occurrence which is
not determined by any time and place.

Page #68

३२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
अन्योन्याभावस्य व्याप्यवृत्तितानियमवादिनये अन्योन्याभावात्यन्ताभावस्य प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकस्वरूपत्वेऽपि अव्याप्यवृत्तिमदन्योन्याभावाभावस्य व्याप्यवृत्तिस्वरूपस्याऽतिरिक्तस्याभ्युपगमात्, तच्च अग्रे स्फुटीभविष्यति ।
(२३) ननु तथापि समवायादिना गगनादिहेतुके इदं वह्निमद् गगनादित्यादावतिव्याप्तिः वहन्यभाववति हेतुतावच्छेदकसमवायादिसम्बन्धेन गगनादेरवृत्तेः । न च तल्लक्ष्यमेव, २३ हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन
determinant of counter-positive-ness the absence of the mutual absence of that which has that which is partially existent is accepted different in the form on non-partial existent, this view will be made clear latter on.
(23) Now here is the objection-yet there is a fault of too wide application, in the inference; 'it has fire because of having ether' where ether is a reason by the relation inherence. This is because ether dose not exists in the substratum of the absences of fire by the relation inherence. It should not be said that-this is a valid reason23 because of the absence of the existence in the subject, there is usage of invalid reason-hood, because there also inferential knowledge is experienced due to error of concomitance, otherwise; "this has smoke because of fire" also
23. न च तत् लक्ष्यमेव – Nor the valid inference, having concomitance and occurrence in subject, both are conditions of to be a valid reason and not only one of them. Otherwise fire also exists in the mountain which has smoke, therefore; 'this has smoke because it has fire,' this also would be valid inference.

Page #69

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
पक्षधर्मत्वाभावाच्चाऽसद्धेतुत्वव्यवहार इति वाच्यम् । तत्रापि व्याप्तिभ्रमेणैवानुमितेरनुभवसिद्धत्वात् । अन्यथा धूमवान् वह्ररित्यादेरपि लक्ष्यत्वस्य सुवचत्वात् । एवं द्रव्यं गुणकर्मान्यत्वविशिष्टसत्त्वादित्यादावव्याप्तिः विशिष्टसत्त्वस्य केवलसत्त्वानतिरेकितया द्रव्यत्वाभाववत्यपि गुणादौ तस्य वृत्तेः, गुणे गुणकर्मान्यत्वविशिष्टसत्तेति प्रतीतेः सर्वसिद्धत्वात् । सत्तावान् द्रव्यत्वादित्यादावव्याप्तिश्च, सत्ताभाववति सामान्यादौ हेतुतावच्छेदकसमवायसम्बन्धेन वृत्तेरप्रसिद्धेरिति चेत् न ।
(२४) हेतुतावच्छेदकावच्छिन्नहेत्वधिकरणता-प्रतियोगिकहेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नाऽऽधेयतानिरूपित-विशेषणताविशेष
would be a valid reason.
In this way there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference; "this is a substance because of the existence qualified by difference from quality and action, this is because the qualified existence is not different from pure existence, it exists in quality which has the absence of substance-hood because the notion there is the qualified existence in quality is well known by all. And there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference; "this has existence because of substance-ness' because the occupancy in universal which has the absence of the existence is not estalished, by the relation inherence which determined the state of being a reason.
__ (24) This is not correct, because the general absence of existence in that which has substratum-ness not determined by any attribute and determined by said relation, which described

Page #70

३४
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
सम्बन्धेन निरुक्तसाध्याभावत्वविशिष्टनिरूपित-निरुक्तसम्बन्धसंसर्गकनिरवच्छिन्नाऽधिकरणताऽऽश्रयवृत्तित्वसामान्याभावस्य विवक्षितत्वात् ।२४
by that which qualified by state of being said absence of that which is to be established by the relation one kind of self-someness described by occupancy (ādheyatā) determined by the relation which determines the state of being the reason and which (occupancy) is described by the substratumness of the reason determined by that which determines the state of being a reason is desired to be mentioned by the definition of vyāpti.24
24. HARITY foafedrala-Because absence in general is desired to
say. Here the occurrence which is determined by the relation which determines the state of being reason, and which (occurrence) is indicated by substratumness of reason and which is determined by the determinant feature which determines reasonness and the counter-positive-ness determined by the relation selfsomeness which has that occurrence as its adjunct and which (counter-positive-ness) exists in the occurrence which is indicated by the locus of the locusness which is not determined by any attribute and indicated by indicatorness which is determined by the relation which is determinant of counter-positive-ness belonging to sādhya in general, counter-positive-ness which of exists in the absence of sādhya, and determined by the relation of that which determines the state of being sādhya, and the state of having such a counterpositive-ness is the difference of vyāpti just as by relation of conjunction which has jar as it's adjunct, the jar exists on the ground, not clothness, therefore by this relation the absence of clothness is “kevalānvayi” (everywhere). Similarly the occurrence existing in namebility which (occurnce) is determined by selfsome

Page #71

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
३५
(२५) वृत्तित्वञ्च न हेतुतावच्छेदसम्बन्धेन विवक्षणीयम् । अस्ति च सत्तावान् द्रव्यत्वादित्यादौ सत्ताभावाधिकरणताश्रयवृत्तित्वस्य हेतुतावच्छेदकसमवायसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नाधेयतानिरूपितविशेषणताविशेषसम्बन्धेन सामान्याभावो द्रव्यत्वादौ, समवायसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नाधेयतानिरूपित
(25) The occupancy should not be desired to be mentioned by the relation which determines the state of being the reason. And there is general absence of occupancy and indi cated by that which has the substratum-ness of the absence of existence by the relation which is a kind of selfsome-ness relation described by the occupancy determined by inherence relation which determines the state of being the reason, in substance-ness. This is because the absence of existence which (absence) has the counter-positive-ness determined by a kind of self-someness relation, described by the occupancy determined by the relation inherence, is the absence which has counter
relation and which is locus of the absence of existence by the selfsome relation, adjunct of which is occurrence which is in subjectness which is determined by the relation of determinant of state of being reason and which (occurrence) is indicated by the locusness, which is indicated by indicatorness, existing in substanceness determined by substanceness-ness. That occurrence does not exists anywhere by the mentioned relation, therefore the absence of that occurrence exists in the substance also, therefore there is no fault of too narrow application with regard the valid reason, “subtanceness, belongs to the inference, it has generic attribute existence because it has substanceness.'

Page #72

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
विशेषणताविशेषसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकसत्ताभावाधिकरणत्वाश्रयवृत्तित्वाभावस्य व्यधिकरणसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकाभावतया संयोगसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नगुणाभावादेरिव केवलान्वयित्वात् ।
द्रव्यं सत्त्वादित्यादौ च द्रव्यत्वाभावाधिकरणगुणादिवृत्तित्वस्यैव समवायसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नाधेयतानिरूपितविशेषणतासम्बन्धेन सत्तायां सत्वान्नातिव्याप्तिः । द्रव्यं विशिष्टसत्त्वादित्यादावव्याप्तिवारणाय प्रतियोगिकान्तमाधेयताविशेषणम्२५ ।
positive-ness determined by non-co-existent relation, is pure affirmative status is just as the absence of quality determined by conjunction.
And in the inference 'this has substance-ness because of existence, the occupancy described by the quality which is the substratum of the absence of substance-ness, exists in existence by the relation qualifier-ness described by occupancy (ādheyatā) determined by the relation inherence. Therefore there is no fault of too wide application. To avoid the fault of too narrow application in the inference; "this has substanceness because of qualified existence ending with 'having counterpositive is the qualifier of the occupancy. (ādheyatā)25
25. प्रतियोगिकान्तमाधेयताविशेषणम्-If the qualification having locusness of
reason which is determined by the determinant of the reason- hood, is not used, then there would be fault of too wide application with the invalid reason belonging to; "this has substancencess because it has qualified generic attribute existence.” The locusness of the absence of substanceness by the relation selfsomeness, adjunct of

Page #73

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
३७
(२५) वस्तुतस्तु एतल्लक्षणकर्तृमते विशिष्टसत्त्वं विशिष्टनिरूपिताधारतासम्बन्धेनैव द्रव्यत्वव्याप्यं, न तु समवायसम्बन्धेन,२६ तथा च
(25) In fact, in the opinion of the maker of this definition, the qualified existence is pervaded by substance-ness by the relation the state of being substratum described by qualified thing only and not by inherence relation.26 Therefore
which is the occurrence in existence, exists in quality etc. The occurrence which existing in the existence, indicated by quality etc. that occurrence exists in qualified existence also, because qualified thing is not different from unqualified thing. When the expression “having locusness of the reason determined by the determinant of reason-ness adjunct of which is that selfsome relation” is used, there would not be fault of too narrow application in the inference; "it has substanceness because it has qualified existence.” This is because the locusness which exists in substance which is indicated by indicatorness which exists in the reason qualified existence indicates occurrence, which is determined by the relation of inherence and which (occurrence) exists in qualified existence by the relation selfsomeness adjunct of which is that(occurrrence), the locusness of the absence of substanceness which exists in quality etc. the substratum of that locusness is quality etc. indicated by it, is the occurrence in the existence. That does not exist any where, therefore absence of that occurrence exists in the qualified existence. This is
the idea. 26. 7 I 440RIGHEOL-277-Not by the relation inherence etc. here the
determinant relation of hetutā(reason-hood) is the locus-ness indicated by qualified existence. The occurrence by this relation occurrence which exists in qualified existence by its relation the

Page #74

३८
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
प्रतियोगकान्तमाधेयताविशेषणमनुपादेयमेव । तदुपादाने हेतुतावच्छेदकभेदेन कार्यकारणभावभेदापत्तेः । हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन सम्बन्धित्वे सति२७ इत्यनेनापि विशेषणाद् वह्निमान् गगनादित्यादौ नातिव्याप्तिः ।
(२६) ननु तथापि उभयत्वमुभयत्रैव पर्याप्तं न तु एकत्रेति सिद्धान्तादरे घटत्ववान् घटत्वतदभाववदुभयत्वादित्यादौ पर्याप्त्याख्य
the qualifier of occupancy (ādheyatā) ending with 'having counter-positive' should not be used indeed. If it is used there would be different cause-effect relationships due to different determinants of the state of being reason. The qualification 'state of being relatum by the relation which determines the state of being reason27 also should be used, therefore there is no fault of too wide application in the inference; 'this has fire because of ether'.
(26) Even though here the objection is-if this doctrine that 'both-ness occupies both things simultaneously and not one thing' is accepted, there is the fault of too wide application in the inference; ‘this has pot-ness because of both-ness of those which have pot-ness and the absence of it' when the reason is taken by the relation paryāpti, because the reason dose not
locus of the absence of substance-ness is quality etc. and which is determined by the inherence relation does not exists any where therefore the absence of occurrence exists in qualified existence also. Therefore there is no fault of too narrow application.
27. सम्बन्धित्वे सतीत्यनेन - Being relative the reason ether, is not related with anything by the relation of inherence which is determinant relation of state of being reason.

Page #75

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
सम्बन्धेन हेतुत्वेऽतिव्याप्तिः, घटत्वाभाववति हेतुतावच्छेदकपर्याप्त्याख्यसम्बन्धेन हेतोरवृत्तेः, घटो न घटपटोभयमितिवद् घटत्वाभाववान् न घटत्वतदभाववदुभयमित्यपि प्रतीतेरिति चेत् न,
तादृशसिद्धान्तादरे हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन साध्यसमानाधिकरणत्वे सतीत्यनेनैव विशेषणीयत्वादिति । अत एव उक्तं 'निविशतां वा वृत्तिमत्त्वं साध्यसामानाधिकरणत्वं वेति' केवलान्वयिग्रन्थे दीधितिकृतः । तद्विशेषणात् वह्निमद् गगनाद् इत्यादौ न अतिव्याप्तिः ।
(२७) केचित्तु २८ निरुक्तसाध्याभावत्वविशिष्टनिरूपिता या
exist in that which has the absence of pot-ness by the relation paryāpti which determines the state of being reason. This is because there is the notion also that 'which has the absence of pot-ness is not both which have pot-ness and its absence' just as 'pot is not both pot and cloth'.
This is not correct because if this doctrine is accepted 'having state of being co-existent with that which is to be established' should be added as qualifier. Therefore the author of Dīdhiti says 'let include state of having existence in the reason or state of being co-existent with that which is to be established in the ‘kevalānvayi grantha.' When this qualification is used there is no fault of too wide application in the inference such as; this has fire because of ether.'
(27) Some logicians28 say, the definition of vyāpti is
28. केचित्तु-This definition is made according to the opinion of those who
accept absence of mutual absence or absolute absence is different from counter-positive, or determinant of counter-positive-ness.

Page #76

४०
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
विशेषणताविशेषसम्बन्धेन यथोक्तसम्बन्धेन वा निरवच्छिन्नाधिकरणता तदाश्रयव्यक्त्यवर्त्तमानं हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नद्धर्मावच्छिन्नाधिकरणत्वसामान्यं तद्धर्मवत्त्वं विवक्षितम् । धूमवान् वह्नेरित्यादौ पर्वतादिनिष्ठवह्न्यधिकरणताव्यक्तेर्धूमाभावाधिकरणावृत्तित्त्वेऽपि अयोगोलकनिष्ठवह्न्यधिकरणताव्यक्तेरतथात्वान्नातिव्याप्तिरित्याहुः ।
(२८) अन्ये तु हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नहेतुतावच्छेदकावच्छिन्नस्वाधिकरणता श्रयवृत्ति यन्निरवच्छिन्नाधिकरणत्वं तदवृत्तिनिरुक्त
-
desired to be mentioned the state of having the attribute which is substratum-hood in general determined by a particular attribute and determined by the relation which determines the state of being a reason, which (substratum-hood) exists in that individual thing which has the substratum-hood not determined by any feature, described by that which is qualified by early mentioned. The state of being absence of that which is to be established by the realtion attributive-ness or relation as the mentioned.
There is no fault of too wide application in the inference; 'it has smoke because of fire' etc. because though the substratumness of fire abinding in the mounrain, does not exist in the substuatum of absence of smote; the substuatum-ness of fire abinding in the hot ironball is not like that (exists in the substuatum of absence of smoke) this is said.
(28) Others say that the state of being substratum-hood determined by early mentioned relation and described by that which is qualified by early mentioned state of being absence of

Page #77

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
साध्याभावत्वविशिष्टनिरूपितयथोक्तसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नाधिकरणतात्मकत्वमिति विशेषणविशेष्यभावव्यत्यासे तात्पर्यम्२९, स्वपदं हेतुपरम् । इत्थञ्च
that which is to be established and which does not exist in that substratum-hood of that which is not determined by any attribute, and which exists in the locus of substratum-hood of itself which is determined by that which determines the state of being reason and determined by the relation which determines the state of being reason. This is intention29 by the change of qualifier and qualified relationship. The term 'self denotes reason. In this way there is no fault of too narrow application even in the inferences; “this has the absence of the conjunction with monkey because of existence', 'this is different from that
29. arueft-Intention. “The locusness of reason which is determined by
determinant of reason-hood, and which is determined by the relation of determinant of reasonhood, existing in the locus of such locusness of the reason, the locus-ness which is not determined by any attribute, non-existing in that locus-ness which exists in the locus which is indicated by the state of being indication, and which is determined by the relation which determines the counter-positiveness of the sādhya in general, and which counter-positive-ness exists in the absence of sādhya and which (counter-positiveness) is determined by the state of being absence of sādhya, counter-positiveness of which is determined by the determinant of state of being of sādhya and which is determined by the relation which determines the state of being sādhya, to be belonging of reason of that locusnessness” is the definition of vyāpti according to some authors.

Page #78

४२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
कपिसंयोगाभाववान् सत्त्वात्, कपिसंयोगिभिन्नं गुणत्वादित्यादावपि नाव्याप्तिरित्याहुरिति सङ्क्षेपः ।
which has conjunction with monkey' because of state of quality. etc. This is the brief discussion.

Page #79

द्वितीयं लक्षणम्
(२९) लक्षणान्तरमाह
साध्यवद्भिन्नेति । साध्यवद्भिन्नो यः साध्याभाववान् तदवृत्तित्वमित्यर्थः । कपिसंयोगी एतद्वृक्षत्वादित्याद्यव्याप्यवृत्तिसाध्यकाव्याप्तिवारणाय साध्यवद्भिन्नेति साध्याभाववतो विशेषणमिति प्राञ्चः, तदसत्, 'साध्याभाववद्' इत्यस्य व्यर्थतापत्तेः साध्यवद्भिन्नावृत्तित्वम् इत्यस्यैव सम्यक्त्वात् ।
"
The second definition of Vyapti
(29) The author states the second definition of vyapti by the expression “that which is different from that which has that which is to be established". The meaning is the non-existence of reason in that which possesses the absence of that which is to be established and which is different from that which has that which is to be established. According to old logicions the expression 'that which is different from that which has that which is to be established' is the qualifier of the substratum of the absence of that which is to be established is used to avoid the too narrow application, in the inference; 'this has the conjunction of a monkey of this treeness because this is the inference' in which that which is to be established has partial existence. This is the opinion of old logicians. It is not correct because in this case the expression 'the substratum of the absence of that which is to be established' will be useless, because the non-existence in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established only would be the correct definition.

Page #80

४४
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
(३०) नव्यास्तु साध्यवद्भिन्ने साध्याभावः साध्यवद्भिन्नसाध्याभावः तद्वदवृत्तित्वमिति सप्तमीतत्पुरुषोत्तरं मतुप्प्रत्ययः । तथा च साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तिर्यः साध्याभावस्तद्वदवृत्तित्वमित्यर्थः । एवञ्च साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तीत्यनुक्तौ संयोगी द्रव्यत्वादित्यादावव्याप्तिः । संयोगाभाववति द्रव्ये द्रव्यत्वस्य वृत्तेः, तदुपादाने च संयोगवद्भिन्नवृत्तिः संयोगाभावो गुणादिवृत्तिः संयोगाभाव एव अधिकरणभेदेन अभावभेदात् तद्वदवृत्तित्वान्नाव्याप्तिः ।
(30) New logicians say-the absence of that which is to be established in that which is different from that which has that which to be established is meant by the absence of that which is to be established, is in that which is other than that which has sādhya and non existence in that. This is suffix matup after the compound seventh case tatpurusa. Therefore 'the non-existence in that which has the absence of that which is to be established which (absence) exists in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established' is the meaning. In this way if the 'existent in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established', is not said there will be the fault of too narrow application in the inference; 'this has conjunction because this has substanceness.' This is because substance-ness exists in the substance which has the absence of that which is to be established that is conjunetion when that is said the absence of the conjunction which exists in quality is the absence of conjunction which exists in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established, because absence is different due to difference in the substratum and because it does not exists in that, therefore there is no fault of too narrow application.

Page #81

द्वितीयं लक्षणम्
४५
(३१) न च तथापि साध्यवद्भिन्नावृत्तित्वमित्येवास्तु लक्षणं किं साध्याभाववदित्यनेन इति वाच्यम् । यथोक्तलक्षणे तस्य अप्रवेशेन वैयर्थ्याभावात् तस्यापि लक्षणान्तरत्वात् ।
न च तथापि साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तिर्यस्तद्वदवृत्तित्वमेवास्तु किं साध्याभावपदेन इति वाच्यम् । तादृशद्रव्यत्वादिमद्वृत्तित्वात् असम्भवापत्तेः । साध्याभावेत्यत्र साध्यपदमप्यत एव, द्रव्यत्वादेरपि द्रव्यत्वाभावाभावत्वात् भावरूपाभावस्य च अधिकरणभेदेन भेदाभावात् ।
__ (31) Nor it can be said-let there be the non- existence in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established as the definition, what is the need of the expression ‘that which has the absence of that which is to be established ? This is because even there is no useless-ness of that expression due to non-inclusion of it in the said definition because that is also a different definition.
Nor it should be said-let be the non-existence in that which has that which exists in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established, what is the need of the expression 'absence of that which is to be established?
Because there will be a fault of impossibility, because it exists in that which has such substance-ness. In the expression “the absence of sādhya that which is to be established', the word that which is to be established, is for the same reason only sādhya the substance-ness, also is the absence of the absence of substance-ness because the absence which has the positive form is not different due to the difference in the substratum.

Page #82

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
___ (३२) ननु तथापि घटाकाशसंयोगघटत्वान्यतराभाववान् गगनत्वादित्यादौ घटानधिकरणदेशावच्छेदेन घटाकाशसंयोगाभावस्य गगने सत्त्वात् सद्धेतुतया अव्याप्तिः, साध्यवद्भिन्ने घटे वर्त्तमानस्य साध्याभावस्य घटाकाशसंयोगरूपस्य गगनेऽपि सत्त्वात्, तत्र च हेतोर्वृत्तेः । न च साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तित्वविशिष्टसाध्याभाववत्त्वं विवक्षितमिति३० वाच्यम् । साध्याभावपदवैयर्थ्यांपत्तेः । साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तित्वविशिष्टवदवृत्तित्वस्यैव
(32) This is the objection that-in the inference; "this thing has the absence of one of them the conjunction of a jar with ether and jar-ness because this has ether-hood” which is a valid reason, there is fault of too narrow application, because the absence of the conjunction of jar and ether exists in ether, by the place where there is no a jar, in the jar which is different from that which has that which is to be established, and which has absence of that which is to be established, in the form of the conjunction of jar and ether, exists in either also and there reason exists.
Nor it should be said 30the state of having the absence of that which is to be established qualified by the existence in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established, because the word the absences of that which is to
30. विवक्षितम्-Desired to be said-just as the locus-ness indicated by the state
of being indicator determined by qualified existence-ness, exists only in substance not in quality etc., similarly the absence of sādhya in the form of the conjunction of ether with jar also exists only in jar and not in ether, therefore there is no fault of too narrow application.

Page #83

द्वितीयं लक्षणम्
४७
सम्यक्त्वादिति चेत्, न । अभावाभावस्यातिरिक्तत्वमतेनैतल्लक्षणकरणात् । तथा च अधिकरणभेदेन अभावभेदात् साध्यवद्भिन्ने घटे वर्तमानस्य साध्याभावस्य प्रतियोगिव्यधिकरणस्य प्रतियोगिमति गगनेऽसत्त्वादव्याप्तेरभावात् ।
___ (३३) न चैवं साध्याभावेत्यत्र साध्यपदवैयर्थ्यम् अभावाभावस्यातिरिक्तत्वेन द्रव्यत्वादेरभावत्वाभावात् साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तिघटाभावादेस्तु
be established would be useless. If it is said that the absence existence in that which has that qualified by existence in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established would be correct. This is not admitted because this definition is made by the opinion that the absence of absence is different from positive entity. Therefore there is no fault of too narrow application because the absence of that which is to be established exists, in the jar which is different from that which has that which is to be established and which (absence) dose not exist in that where counter-positive of it exists and that absence abides in ether which has counter-positive, due to difference in absence by substratum.
__ (33) It should not be argued that-in this way the word ‘that which is to be established', will be useless in the expression “the absence of that which is to be established because the absence of absence is different from positive entity hence the substance-ness is not an absence, the absence of a jar which exists in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established does not exist in the substratum of the

Page #84

४८
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
हेतुमति असत्त्वात्३१ अधिकरणभेदेन अभावभेदादिति वाच्यम् । यत्र प्रतियोगिसमानाधिकरणत्वप्रतियोगिव्यधिकरणत्वलक्षणविरुद्धधर्माध्यास:३२ तत्रैव अधिकरणभेदेन अभावभेदाभ्युपगमो न तु सर्वत्र, तथा च साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तिघटाभावादेहेर्तुमत्यपि सत्त्वाद् असम्भववारणाय३३
reason31 because of the difference in the absence due to difference in the locus of it. This is because where the oppositive attributes as “the state of being co-existent with its counterpositive and state of being non-co-existent with its counterpositive32, abide there only absences are accepted different due the differene in the is substratum, not in all cases. Therefore to avoid the fault of impossibility33 because of the absence of a jar
31. Arthraiffa-Because it does not exist in the locus of the reason.
The absence of absences which exists in water, the locus of that absence is the water etc. and not mountain etc. If absence is not different from other absence on basis of the difference of locus then the locus of the absence of fireness which exists in lake etc., like it the mountain also will be its locus, because the absence of fireness exists in the mountain. The smoke exists in the mountain. Therefore there would be fault of too narrow application. When the absence is accepted different from other absence due to difference in there locuses then the absence of jarness existing in lake etc., the substratum of it is the absence of smoke. Therefore there is no fault
of too narrow application. 32. folhas Th12/14-Knowledge of opposite attributes. The absence of the
conjunction of monkey which has incomplete occurrence is accepted
different on the basis of the different locus of absences. 33. 374E4OAR -To avoid the fault of imposibility, if leaving the word

Page #85

द्वितीयं लक्षणम्
४९
साध्यपदोपादानात् ।
(३४) यद्वा घटाकाशसंयोग-घटत्वान्यतराभावाभावोऽतिरिक्त एव, घटाकाशसंयोगादीनामननुगततया तथात्वस्य वक्तुमशक्यत्वात् । घटत्वद्रव्यत्वाद्यभावाभावस्तु नातिरिक्तः, घटत्वद्रव्यत्वादीनामप्यनु
etc. which exist in that which is different from that which has 'that which is to be established abides in the substratum of the reason, the term 'that which is to be established' is included.
(34) Or the absence of an absence of one of the jar-ness and the conjunction of ether and jar is different from positive entity because the conjunction of jar and ether etc. has no consecutive attributives as positive entity. Therefore this can not be said, the absence of absence of jar-ness and substanceness etc. are consecutive attributives. Therefore to
'sadhya' only the word absence is used, there would be the fault of too narrow application, because the absence which exists in lake etc., which is locus of the absence of sadhya fire is the absence of absence of substance-ness which has identity with substanceness, the locus of this absence is mountain where smoke exists, therefore there is not the absence is of that occurrence, there is the fault of too narrow application, when the word 'sadhya' is being used in the definition, there would not be the possibility of the fault of impossibility. The absence of sadhya which exists in water, is the absence of fire, the locus of it is water etc., the occurrence which indicated by water does not exists in smoke therefore there is no chance of fault of impossibility.

Page #86

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
गतत्वात् । तथा च द्रव्यत्वादिकमादायासम्भववारणायैव साध्यपदमिति प्राहुरित्यास्तां विस्तरः ।
avoid fault of impossibility by taking substance-ness etc. the expression 'that which is to be established is used it is said by some logicians. Let finish details.

Page #87

तृतीयं लक्षणम् (३५) साध्यवत्प्रतियोगिकान्योन्याभावेति । हेतौ साध्यवत्प्रतियोगिकान्योन्याभावाधिकरणवृत्तित्वाभाव इत्यर्थः । अन्योन्याभावश्च प्रतियोग्यवृत्तित्वेन विशेषणीयः, तेन साध्यवतो व्यासज्यवृत्तिधर्मावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकान्योन्याभाववति हेतोर्वृत्तावपि न असम्भवः ।
___ (३६) ननु एवमपि नानाधिकरणकसाध्यके वह्निमान् धूमादित्यादौ साध्याधिकरणीभूततत्तद्व्यक्तित्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकान्योन्या
The Third definition of Vyāpti (35) Non-coexistence of the mutual absence which has its counter-positive that which has that which is to be established in the reason. The absence of existence described by the substratum of the mutual absence of that which has that which is to be established, is its counter-positive, this is the meaning. The mutual absence should be qualified by nonexisting in the counter-positive. Therefore, there is no fault of impossibility even though the reason exists in the substratum of mutual absence of that which has that which is to be established determined by the characteristic which exists simultaneously more then one thing.
(36) There is an objection in this way also. There is a fault of too narrow application in the inference, 'this has fire because this has smoke' where that which is to be established belongs to many substrata. This is because in the substratum of the mutual absence which has counter-positive-ness

Page #88

५२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
भाववति हेतोर्वृत्तेरव्याप्तिर्दुर्वारा इति । प्रतियोग्यवृत्तित्वमपहाय साध्यवत्त्वाच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकान्योन्याभावविवक्षणे तु पञ्चमेन सह पौनरुक्त्यमिति चेत्, न, वक्ष्यमाणकेवलान्वय्यव्याप्तिवदस्य अपि अत्र दोषत्वात् ।
(३७) न च तथापि साध्यवत्प्रतियोगिकान्योन्याभावमात्रस्यैव एतल्लक्षणघटकत्वे वक्ष्यमाणकेवलान्वय्यव्याप्तिः अत्रासङ्गता, केवलान्वयिसाध्यकेऽपि साध्याधिकरणीभूततत्तद्व्यक्तित्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिता
determined by the state of being particular individual which is a substratum of that which is to be established, there the reason exists. If to avoid that fault instead of non-existence in the counter-positive, the mutual absence which has the counterpositive-ness determined by the state of having that which is to be established is used, there will be repeatation in the respect of fifth definition. This is not correct, because like too narrow application in the pure positive inference which will be said later on, here this fault also happens.
(37) Nor yet it can be argued that-if the mutual absence which has that a which has that which is to be established, this is only a part of the definition, the fault of too narrow application in the pure positive inference which is to be shown later on would be in-consistent in this case, because the mutual absence which has the counter-positive-ness determined by the state of being particular individual substratum of that which is to be established, is established, in the inference where that which is to be established is pure affirmative. This is because

Page #89

तृतीय लक्षणम्
कान्योन्याभावस्य प्रसिद्धत्वादिति वाच्यम् । तत्रापि तादृशान्योन्याभावस्य प्रसिद्धत्वेऽपि तद्वति हेतोर्वृत्तेरेव अव्याप्तेर्दुर्वारत्वात् ।
५३
(३८) यद्वा साध्यवत्प्रतियोगिकान्योन्याभावपदेन साध्यवत्त्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकान्योन्याभाव एव विवक्षितः । न चैवं पञ्चमाभेदः, तत्र साध्यवत्त्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिकान्योन्याभाववत्त्वेन प्रवेशः, अत्र तु तादृशान्योन्याभावाधिकरणत्वेन इत्यधिकरणत्वप्रवेशाप्रवेशाभ्यामेव भेदात्। अखण्डाभावघटकतया ३४ च नाधिकरणत्वांशस्य वैयर्थ्यमिति न
there also, even though such mutual absence is established, there the fault of too narrow application is not avoidable, because the reason exists in the substratum of that.
(38) Or that by the expression 'mutual absence which has the counter-positive-ness which abides in that which has that which is to be established,' the mutual absence that which has the counter- positive-ness determined by the state of having that which is to be established, is to be said. In this way there is no identity with fifth (definition) since a mutual absence which has the counter-positive-ness determined by the state of having that which is to be established is not included there, here (it is included) as a being a substratum of a such mutual absence. In this way there is difference from fifth definition, due to inclusion and non inclusion of state of being substratum, there is no uselessness of the part of substratum-ness, because it is a constituent part of one individual (akhand) absence 34, therefore there is no fault.
34. अखण्डाभाव—There are so many definitions of vyāpti, one of them is

Page #90

५४
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
कोऽपि दोष इति दिक् ।
This is a direction.
inclusive of locusness. This is the idea, here in the definition nonoccurrence in that which is different from that which is the locus of the absence of sadhya, the state of being determinant existing in the mutual absence, is indicated by the state of being determinant existing in the locus. But in this third definition that state of being determinant existing in mutual absence, is indicated by the state of being determinant, existing in occurrence. This is difference between them.

Page #91

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
(३९) सकलेति । साकल्यं साध्याभाववतो विशेषणं, तथा च यावन्ति साध्याभावाधिकरणानि तन्निष्ठाभावप्रतियोगित्वं हेतोः व्याप्तिरित्यर्थः । धूमाद्यभाववज्जलहृदादिनिष्ठाभावप्रतियोगित्वाद्वयादावतिव्याप्तिरिति यावदिति साध्याभाववतो विशेषणम्, साध्याभावविशेषणत्वे तत्तद्हदावृत्तित्वादिरूपेण यो वढ्याद्यभावस्तस्यापि सकलसाध्याभावत्वेन प्रवेशात् तावदधिकरणाप्रसिद्ध्या असम्भवापत्तेः ।
The fourth definition of Vyāpti: (39) All, (the expression all), is a qualification of the substratum of the absence of that which is to be established, the counter-positive-ness of the absence which exists in that which are substrata of the absence of that which is to be established, in the reason is the vyāpti. This is the meaning. Because there is fault of too narrow application in the fire which is a conuterpositive of the absence which abides in waterlake etc. which is the substratum of the absence of smoke etc. all is stated to be a qualification of that which has that which is to be established. If it would be a qualification of the absence of that which is to be established there will be a fault of impossibility. This is because the absence of fire qualifies by non-existence in lake etc. that (absence) also is included in all absences of that which is to be established, therefore one substratum of them are not established.

Page #92

५६
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
(४०) न च द्रव्यं सत्त्वादित्यादौ द्रव्यत्वाभाववति गुणादौ सत्त्वादेर्विशिष्टाभावादिसत्त्वादतिव्याप्तिरिति वाच्यम् । तादृशाभावप्रतियोगितावच्छेदकहेतुतावच्छेदकवत्त्वस्येह विवक्षितत्वात् ।
( ४१ ) प्रतियोगिता च हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्ना ग्राह्या, तेन द्रव्यत्वाभाववति गुणादौ सत्तादेः संयोगादिसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नाभावसत्त्वेऽपि
(40) Nor it should be argued that-there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference 'it is a substance because it has existence, because of there is absence of qualified existence35 in the quality etc. which has the absence of substance-ness, because here, 'state of having the determinant of the state of being reason the determinant of the counterpositive-ness of such an absence, is to be said.
(41) The counter-positive-ness should be taken as determined by the relation of the determinant of the state of
35. सत्त्वादेर्विशिष्टाभावात् – The quality which is locus of absence of the substanceness is the locus of existence, being non-substratum of qualified existence. If the counter-positive-ness of the absence of qualified existence exists in that counter-positive-ness exists in existence also, therefore there is fault of too narrow application when to avoide this fault state of having determinant of state of being reason is maintioned as determinant of counter-positive-ness of such absence. The state of being qualified existence though it is determinant of the counter-positive-ness of that absence the state of being unqualified existence which is determinant of state of being reason is not determinant of the counter-positive-ness of such absence, therefore there is no fault of too narrow application.

Page #93

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
५७
नातिव्याप्तिः ।
(४२) साध्याभावश्च साध्यतावच्छेदकावच्छिन्न-साध्यतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्न-प्रतियोगिताको ग्राह्यः, अन्यथा पर्वतादावपि वढ्यादेविशिष्टाभावादिसत्त्वेन समवायादिसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नवल्यादिसामान्याभावसत्त्वेन च यावदन्तर्गततया तन्निष्ठाभावप्रतियोगित्वाभावात् धूमस्य असम्भवः स्यात् ।
(४३) न च कपिसंयोगी एतद्वक्षत्वात् इत्यादौ एतद्वृक्षस्यापि तादृशसाध्याभाववत्त्वेन यावदन्तर्गततया तन्निष्ठाभावप्रतियोगित्वाभावादेत
being the reason. Therefore there is no the fault of too wide application, even the absence of existence, which has a counter-positive-ness determined by the relation conjunction, exists in quality etc. where the absence of substance-ness exists.
(42) And the absence of that which is to be established, should be understood as having a counter-positive-ness determined by the realation of the determinant of the state of that which is to be established, and determined by the determinant of the state of being that which is to be established, otherwise there would be a fault of impossibility, because smoke has not the counter-positive-ness of the absence which exists in the mountain etc., which is included in all where the absence of a qualified fire and the absence of fire in general determined by the relation of inherence exist.
(43) Nor, it should be said that-there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference; "this has the conjunction of monkey because of 'this tree-ness' this tree-ness also exists in

Page #94

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
दृक्षत्वस्याव्याप्तिरिति वाच्यम् । किञ्चिदनवच्छिन्नायाः साध्याभावाधिकरणताया इह विवक्षितत्वात् । इत्थञ्च किञ्चिदनवच्छिन्नायाः कपिसंयोगाभावाधिकरणताया गुणादावेव३६ सत्त्वात्तत्र च हेतोरप्यभाव
that which has such absence of that which is to be established, which (tree) is included in all, because the absence of counterpositive-ness of the absence which exists in that, because the substratum-hood of the absence of that which is to be established, is desired to be said, as not determined by any thing. In this way the substratumhood of the absence of the conjunction of monkey which is not determined by any thing, exists in quality36 etc., and where is the absence of the reason
36. Tugida-In quality etc. only. Those who do not accept difference
between absences due to differences in substratum, in the opinion of them, the absence of conjunction of monkey which exists in the tree and the absences of conjunction of monkey which exists in quality, both are same. If the absence of the conjunction of monkey in the tree is determined by root, the absence of monkey in quality also would be determined by something. If it is not determined by anything in quality, it is not determined by anything in the tree also, because both are same. Here complete occurrence and non-complete occurrence both should be accepted as non-complete occurrence and which has non-complete occurrence can't be co-existent. Just as the conjunction and absence of conjunction both are co-existent in the tree in different parts, similarly the absence of conjunction which exists in quality has complete occurrence when the absence of conjunction in the tree has incomplete occurrence. Therefore in the opinion of those who accept identity in absences, the locusness of the

Page #95

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
सत्त्वान्नाव्याप्तिः ।
___ (४४) न च कपिसंयोगाभाववान् सत्त्वादित्यादौ साध्याभावस्य कपिसंयोगादेनिरवच्छिन्नाधिकरणत्वाप्रसिद्ध्या अव्याप्तिरिति वाच्यम् । केवलान्वयिनि अभावादित्यनेन ग्रन्थकृतैव एतद्दोषस्य वक्ष्यमाणत्वात् ।
(४५) न च पृथिवी कपिसंयोगादित्यादौ पृथिवीत्वाभाववति जलादौ यावत्येव कपिसंयोगाभावसत्त्वादतिव्याप्तिरिति वाच्यम् । तन्निष्ठपदेन तत्र निरवच्छिन्नवृत्तिमत्त्वस्य विवक्षितत्वात् । इत्थञ्च
also. Therefore there is no fault of too narrow application.
(44) It should not be said that-there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference; "this has the absence of the conjunction of monkey because this has existence” due to non establishment of the state of being a substratum of the conjunction of monkey as not determined by anything. This is because this fault would be mentioned by author himself by the expression, “Absence in the pure affirmative inference.”
(45) Nor it should be said that-there is a fault of too wide application in the inference; “it is earth because it has the conjunction of monkey.” This is because the absence of the conjunction of monkey exists in all water etc., which are substrata of the absence of earth-hood, because of by the expression “existing in that” the existence which is not determined by any thing is to be said. In this way, the absence of the conjunction of monkey is not the absence which has existence not determined by anything in the
absence of the conjunction which exists in quality has incomplete occurrence.

Page #96

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

Page #97

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
मूलावच्छेदेन कपिसंयोगिभेदाभावभानानुपपत्तेरिति संयोगवद्भिन्नत्वाभावस्य निरवच्छिन्नवृत्तिमत्त्वात् ।
(४७) वस्तुतस्तु सकलपदमत्राशेषपरं,३९ न तु अनेकपरम्,
not be the knowledge of the absence of the difference of that which has the conjunction of monkey by determinaction by the root, because the absence of the difference of that which has conjunction has non-determined existence.
(47) Indeed the word “All” means 'not-remaining else 39 and not ‘many, otherwise there would be a fault of too narrow application in the inference where one individual is a counter
accept mutual absence as having complete occurrence, accept the absence of mutual absence as different from the determinant of counter-positive-ness of the absence. For example, the difference from that which has the conjunction of monkey, has complete occurrence, the absence of that also is different from the determinant of counter-positive-ness, when that absence is admitted as different from the determinant of counter-positive-ness of absence. Just as the notion, "there is no difference from that which has conjunction of monkey in the branch of tree” is valid. The notion "in the root of tree” there is nondifference from that which has conjunction of monkey also is valid. If the absence of difference from that which has conjunction of monkey is accepted identical with the conjunction of the monkey, then because it is not determined by root therefore the notion. “There is no difference from that which has conjunction
of monkey" would be invalid. 39. 37979424-Pervaderness is the meaning of word ‘all.

Page #98

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
एतद्घटत्वाभाववान् पटत्वादित्याद्येकव्यक्तिविपक्षके४० साध्याभावाधिकरणस्य यावत्त्वाप्रसिद्ध्या अव्याप्त्यापत्तेः । तथा च किञ्चिदनवच्छिन्नाया निरुक्तसाध्याभावाधिकरणताया व्यापकीभूतो योऽभावः हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नः तत्प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकहेतुतावच्छेदकवत्त्वं लक्षणार्थः ।
(४८) न च सत्त्वादिसामान्याभावस्यापि प्रमेयत्वादिना निरुक्त
subject 40 as in the case; 'this has the absence of this jar-ness because this is a cloth”. This is because the many-ness of the substratum of the absence of that which is to be established is not established. Therefore the meaning of the definition is that 'the state of having the determinant of the state of being a reason which (determinant) is the determinant of that counterpositive-ness determined by the relation, determinant of the state of being a reason, of the absence which is the pervasive of the state of being a substratum of the absence of that which is to be established which is mentioned as not determined by any
thing.
(48) Nor it should be said that there is a fault of too wide application in the inference; “it is a substance because it has existence.” This is because the absence of existence also is the pervasive of the state of being substratum of the absence of
40. एकव्यक्तिविपक्षके-Where one individual is contradictory example. In
this inference the absence of sādhya is the absence of absence of the fire-ness which is identical with that particular fireness, the locus of this form of absence of sādhya, is one individual fire alone. Therefore many locuses of that absence are not established.

Page #99

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
६३
साध्याभावाधिकरणताया व्यापकत्वाद्४१ द्रव्यं सत्त्वादित्यादावतिव्याप्तिः। तद्वन्निष्ठान्योन्याभावप्रतियोगितानवच्छेदकत्वं व्यापकत्वमित्युक्तौ तु निघूमत्ववान् निर्वह्नित्वादित्यादावव्याप्तिः निर्वह्नित्वाभावानां
that which is to be established. 41 By the state as-the state of being pervader a non-determinant of the counter-positive-ness of the mutual absence which exists in that which has that, there would be a fault of too narrow application in the inference; 'this has the absence of smoke because of the absence of fire.' This is because all absences of absence of fire in the form of fire, are determinant of the mutual counter-positive-ness of the absence existing in that which is the substratum of substratumness or the absence of the absence of smoke by the way of a
41. f16 THE2T4191fETOA UTAPAT 24140calc-The absence of existence is
pervader of the locusness of the absence of sādhya. This is because the absence which exists in the substratum of substanceness quality etc., is not the absence of knowable but the absence of jar etc., the determinant of the counter-positive-ness of the absence is not knowability. That knowability exists in the absence of existence, hence the absence of existence is the pervader of locusness of the absence of sādhya. The counter-positive-ness of which is indicated by such and absence which is determined by the relation of inherence exists in the generic attribute existence. The determinant of the counter-positive-ness is the state of being existence which is the determinant of the state of being valid reason. That determinant exists in the existence, therefore there is a fault of over-extension, this is the meaning.

Page #100

६४
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
वह्निव्यक्तीनां सर्वासामेव चालनीयन्यायेन ४२ निर्धूमत्वाभावाधिकरणतावन्निष्ठान्योन्याभावप्रतियोगितावच्छेदकत्वादिति वाच्यम् । तादृशाधिकरणताया व्यापकतावच्छेदकं हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नयद्धर्मावच्छिन्नाभावत्वं तद्धर्मवत्त्वस्य विवक्षितत्वात् ४३ ।
filter action42 because the state of having that attribute which is the state of being absence which is determined by a particular attribute and determined by the relation which is a determinant of the state of being a reason, and which is a determinant of the state of being a pervasive, of such a substratum-ness, is to be mentioned.43
42. चालनीयन्यायेन - The mutual absence which exists in the mountain which is the substratum of smoke, is the mutual absence of that which has the absence of fire of kitchen, the counter-positive-ness of the absence exists in the hill the determinant of that counterpositive-ness is fire of kitchen. The pervader is not the absence of the absence of fire. Therefore there is fault of too narrow application.
43. faaf-The determinant of pervaderness of the locus-ness of smoke which exists in the mountain, is the state of being absence determined by which particular attribute is the state of being absence of the absence of fire, counter-positive-ness of which exists in the absence of fire and which is determined by the selfsome relation, that attribute exists in the absence of fire which is reason. The absence of which, exists in the mountain is the absence of jar and not the absence of the absence of fire. The determinant of that counter-positive-ness is fire-ness non-determinant is the state of being absence of the absence of fire that is determinant of pervaderness.

Page #101

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
(४९) व्यापकताच्छेदकत्वन्तु तद्वन्निष्ठात्यन्ताभावप्रतियोगितानवच्छेदकत्वम् । न तु तद्वन्निष्ठप्रतियोगिव्यधिकरणाभावप्रतियोगितानवच्छेदकत्वम्, तद्वति निरवच्छिन्नवृत्तिमान् योऽभावस्तत्प्रतियोगितानवच्छेदकत्वं वा, प्रकृते व्यापकतायां प्रतियोगिवैयधिकरण्यस्य निरवच्छिन्नवृत्तित्वस्य वा प्रवेशे प्रयोजनविरहात् । तेन४४ पृथिवी कपिसंयोगादित्यादौ नातिव्याप्तिः कपिसंयोगाभावत्वस्य निरुक्तव्यापक
६५
(49) The state of being a determinant, of pervasive-ness, is the state of being non-determinant of the counter-positiveness of the absolute absence even not non-determinant of counter-positiveness of absence which is non-existent with its counter-positive which exists in that which exists which has that thing or not the state of non-determinant of counterpositive-ness of that absence which has existence, not determined by any thing in the sustratum of that. In the present definition there is no need of the inclusion of the expression of "not being present with counter-positive of it, or existence of not determined by any attribute, in the definition of pervasiveness." Therefore44 there is no fault of too wide application in the inference; 'this is earth because this has the conjunction of monky'. This is because the state of absence of the conjunction of monkey has not the state of being the determinant of above
44. तेनेति – Therefore. When the determinant of pervaderness in accepted in the early mentioned form.

Page #102

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
तावच्छेदकत्वविरहादित्येव४५ परमार्थः ।
• • •
said pervasive-ness,45 this is only the real meaning.
45. निरुक्तव्यापकतावच्छेदकत्वविरहात्-Because of it is not the determinant of
pervader-ness which is stated early. The absolute absence which exists in the water which is substratum of absence of that which has the conjuction of monkey which exists in the part of tree, therefore the determinant of the counter-positive-ness of the absence is the state of being absence of the conjuction of monkey. In this way the state of being absence of the conjuction of monkey is not determinant of pervaderness of the locusness of the absence of sādhya.

Page #103

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
(५०) साध्यवदन्येति । अत्रापि प्रथमलक्षणोक्तरीत्या हेतौ साध्यवदन्यवृत्तित्वाभाव इत्यर्थः । तादृशवृत्तित्वाभावश्च तादृशवृत्तित्वसामान्याभावो बोध्यः । तेन धूमवान्वह्नेरित्यादौ धूमवदन्यजलहृदादिवृत्तित्वाभावस्य धूमवदन्यवृत्तित्वजलत्वोभयाभावस्य च हेतौ सत्त्वेऽपि नातिव्याप्तिः ।
(५१) साध्यवदन्यत्वञ्च-अन्योन्याभावत्वनिरूपित-साध्यवत्त्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकाभाववत्त्वं तेन वह्निमान् धूमादित्यादौ तत्तद्वह्निम
The fifth definition of Vyapti.
(50) “That which is different from that which has that which is to be established". Here also, like the first definition in the reason, the absence of existence described by that which is different from that which has that which is to be established. This is the meaning. The absence of such existence should be understood as absence in general of such existence. Therefore there is no fault of too wide application in the inference; 'this has smoke because of fire,' eventhough the absence of existence described by the water lake etc. which is different from that which has smoke and the absence of both water ness and existence in that which is different from that which has smoke, exist in the reason.
(51) The state of being different from that which has that which is to be established means the state of having that absence which is described by counter-positive-ness of which is determined by the state of having that which is to be established

Page #104

६८
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
दन्यस्मिन् धूमादेर्वृत्तावपि नाव्याप्ति: ४६, न वा वह्निमत्त्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकात्यन्ताभावस्य स्वावच्छिन्नभिन्नभेदरूपस्य ४७ अधिकरणे
and which conuter- positive-ness which is described by state of mutual absence. Therefore there is no fault of too narrow application46 in the inference; "this has fire because of smoke', eventhough smoke exists in that thing which is different from that which has that which is to be established (that particular fire), not even there is fault of too narrow application, though in the mountain nor even though in the mountain etc. smoke exists which is the substratum of the absence which has the counter-positive-ness determined by the state of having fire which (absence) is in the form of difference from that which is different from that which is determined by that itself,47 there is
46. :-No fault of too narrow application. All locuses of fire are included into them which have sadhya. State of having the absence of counter-positive-ness which is determined by the state of having sadhya and which (counter-positive-ness) is determined by the relation of identity, does not exists there, therefore there is no fault of too narrow application.
47. स्वावच्छिन्नभिन्नभेदरूपस्य - The difference from that which has difference from that which is determined by that just as the difference from that which has difference from that which has jar is not difference from jar. Similarly the difference from that which has difference from that which has the absolute absence of that which has fire is not different from the absolute absence of that which has fire. Thus that absence also has the counter-positive-ness which is determined by the state of having sädhya. Hence the locus of that absence is mountain etc.,

Page #105

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
पर्वतादौ धूमस्य वृत्तावप्यव्याप्तिः । तस्य साध्यवत्त्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताया अत्यन्ताभावत्वनिरूपितत्वेन अन्योन्याभावत्वनिरूपितत्वविरहात् । अन्योन्याभावत्वनिरूपितत्वञ्च तादात्म्यसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नत्वमेव ।
___ (५२) साध्यवत्त्वञ्च साध्यतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन बोध्यम्, तेन वह्निमान् धूमादित्यादौ वह्निमत्त्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकस्य समवायेन वह्निमतोऽन्योन्याभावस्य अधिकरणे पर्वतादौ धूमादेर्वृत्तावपि नाव्याप्तिः । fault of too narrow application because the counter-positiveness of that (absence) which is determined by state of having that which is to be established is described by the state of being absolute absence and not by the state of being mutual absence. The state of being described by the state of being mutual absence means to be determined by the relation identity alone.
(52) And the state of having that which is to be established, should be known by the relation which delimits the state of that which is to be established, therefore there is no fault of too narrow application in the inference, 'this has fire because of smoke'eventhough the smoke exists on a mountain which is the substratum of the mutual absence of that which has fire by the relation inherence and which (absence) has the
occurrence which indicated by that exists in smoke. Therefore there is fault of too narrow application. When the counter-positive-ness is stated to be indicated by state of being mutual absence there is no fault of too narrow application because there is absence of being determined by the relation of identity in the counter-positive-ness of the absoulute absence. There that absence can't be taken as the absence of that which has sādhya, this is the idea.

Page #106

७०
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
सर्वमन्यत् प्रथमलक्षणोक्तदिशा अवसेयम् । यथा चास्य न तृतीयलक्षणाभेदस्तथोक्तं तत्रैवेति४८ समासः ।
सर्वाण्येव लक्षणानि केवलान्वय्यव्याप्त्या दूषयति- केवलान्वयिनि अभावादिति । पञ्चानामेव लक्षणानाम् इदं वाच्यं ज्ञेयत्वादित्यादिव्याप्यवृत्तिकेवलान्वयिसाध्यके, द्वितीयादिलक्षणचतुष्टयस्य तु कपिसंयोगाभाववान् सत्त्वादित्याद्यव्याप्यवृत्तिकेवलान्वयिसाध्यकेऽपि चाभावादित्यर्थः ।
(५३) साध्यतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नसाध्यतावच्छेदकावच्छिन्न
counter-positive-ness determined by the state of having fire. All other things should be known according to the description in the first definition. How there is no non-difference with third definition that is already discussed in that place only.48
Author rejects all five definition by too narrow application in the pure affirmative inference by the expression 'absence in pure affirmative inference. There is absence of all five definitions in the inference; 'it is namable because it is knowable’ in which that which is to be established is a pure affirmative and non partial eristent all four definitions begining from the second one have fault of too narrow application in the inference; “this has the absence of the conjunction of monkey because of existence' where that which is to be established is pure affirmative and partial existent, this is the meaning.
__ (53) This is because the mutual absence, which has
48. तत्रैवोक्तम्-Maintioned there only by in locus of locussness, there is
difference between them. These two definitions third and fifth.

Page #107

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
७१
प्रतियोगिताकसाध्याभावस्य साध्यतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन साध्यवत्त्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकाऽन्योऽन्याभावस्य चाप्रसिद्धत्वात्, कपिसंयोगाभाववान् सत्त्वादित्यादौ निरवच्छिन्नसाध्याभावाधिकरणत्वस्य अप्रसिद्धत्वाच्च इति भावः । तृतीयलक्षणस्य केवलान्वयिसाध्यकासत्त्वञ्च तद्व्याख्यानावसरे एव प्रपञ्चितम् ।
(५४) एतच्चोपलक्षणं द्वितीये कपिसंयोगी एतद्वृक्षत्वादित्यादावप्यव्याप्तिः, अधिकरणभेदेन अभावभेदे मानाभावेन कपिसंयोगवद्भिन्नवृत्तिकपिसंयोगाभाववति वृक्षे एतद्वक्षत्वस्य वृत्तित्वात् ।
counter-positive-ness determined by the state of having that which is to be established and determined by the relation which determines the state of being that which is to be established and the absence of that which is to be established which has the counter-positive-ness is determined by the determinant of the state of that which is to be established and determined by the relation which determines the state of that which is to be established, are not established, and the inference; this has the absence of the conjunction of monkey because of existence', the substratum-ness of the absence of that which is to be established, non-determined by anything is not established, this is the idea. The third definition is not applicable in pure affirmative inference is stated when this definition was discussed.
(54) This is indicative. There is a fault of too narrow application of second definition in the inference; "this has the conjunction of monkey because of this treeness.” This is

Page #108

७२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
(५५) न च साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तित्वविशिष्टसाध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वं वक्तव्यम्, एवञ्च वृक्षस्य विशिष्टाधिकरणत्वाभावात् न अव्याप्तिरिति
because this tree-ness exists in the tree which has the absence of the conjunction of monkey which absence exists in that which is different from that which has the conjunction of monkey because there is absence of proof for the theory that absence is different due to difference in substratum.
(55) It should not be said that-there is not fault of too narrow application when it is stated-'The absence of existence in that which has the absence of that which is to be established qualified by the existence in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established because in this way the tree is not a qualified substratum. This is because in that case the expression the absence of that which is to be established will be purpose-less. Hence, existence in that which is qualified by the existence in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established is the correct form of definition, because there is no fault of impossibility in a valid reason due to the absence of the qualified substratum-hood in the locus of the reason. And there is a fault of too narrow application by taking mutual absence through the method of the filter action in the inference; "this mountain has fire because of smoke' where that which is to be established has many substrata while the all mutual absences which have the counter-positive-ness which exists in that which has that which is to be established are included in the third definition, this also should be noted.

Page #109

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
७३
वाच्यम्। साध्याभावपदवैयापत्तेः । साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तित्वविशिष्टवदवृत्तित्वस्यैव सम्यक्त्वात् । सद्धेतौ हेत्वधिकरणे विशिष्टाधिकरणत्वाभावादेव असम्भवाभावात् । तृतीये साध्यवत्प्रतियोगिताकान्योन्याभावमात्रस्य घटकत्वे चालनीयन्यायेन अन्योन्याभावमादाय नानाधिकरणकसाध्यके वह्निमान् धूमादित्यादावव्याप्तिश्च इत्यपि बोध्यम् । इति श्रीमथुरानाथतर्कवागीशकृतं व्याप्तिपञ्चकरहस्यं समाप्तम् ।
Thus the chapter on VYĀPTI-PAÑCAKAM in VYAPTIVĀDA RAHASYA by Śrī Mathurānātha Tarkavāghisa ends.

Page #110

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
(त.१) ननु अनुमितिहेतुव्याप्तिज्ञाने का व्याप्तिः ? न तावदव्यभिचरितत्वम् । तद्धि न साध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वम् ।
(दी.१) समारब्धानुमानप्रामाण्यपरीक्षाकारणीभूतव्याप्तिग्रहोपायप्रतिपादननिदानं व्याप्तिस्वरूपनिरूपणम् आरभते-ननु इत्यादिना ।
(जा.१) समारब्धेति । समारब्धं यदनुमानप्रामाण्यपरीक्षणं
The First definition of vyāpti. (T.1) Here author follows the collection of five tentative definitions of invariable-concomitance (vyāpti) Now the question is, in the knowledge of invariable concomitance (vyāpti), which is the cause of inferential knowledge, what is invariable concomitance (vyāpti) ? Infact, it is not the state of having non-deviation of the reason from that which is to be established) because invariable-conocomitance is neither. The non-existence of the reason in such substratum which possesses the absence of that which is to be established
(D.1) By the expression 'Nanu' author Gangesa starts the discussion of the nature of vyāpti which is the cause of the discussion of the method of the graspping vyāpti, which is the reason of examination of validity of inference which is started by author in previous chapter.
(J.1) 'Started'. Started the examination of the validity of inherence, which is the cause of establishing of validity of

Page #111

प्रथमं लक्षणम्
७५
प्रामाण्यसाधनं तत्कारणीभूतं यद्व्याप्राप्तिग्रहोपायप्रतिपादनं तन्निदानं व्याप्तिस्वरूपनिरूपणमित्यर्थः । व्याप्तिज्ञानं विना 'अयं व्याप्तग्रहोपाय' इति ज्ञातुमशक्यत्वाद्, व्याप्तेस्तत्र विशेषणत्वादिति४९ भावः ।
pervasion. The cause of which is the discussion of the method of grasping vyāpti, which is dependent upon discussion of the nature of vyāpti. Without the knowledge of vyāpti there would not be the knowledge of the method of grasping vyāpti. This is because vyāpti is qualifirer49 there (in the method of grasping vyāpti)
49. fastqucaia-Because of qualifiereness. In the method of knowledge of
unveriable concomitance the knowledge of concomitance is qualifier in vyāpti (concomitance) without is qualifier of the knowledge of vyāpti. Therefore without the knowledge of vyāpti there would not be the knowledge of the method of the knowledge of vyāpti, because the knowledge of qualifier is the cause of the knowledge of qualified thing.

Page #112

द्वितीयं लक्षणम् (त.२) साध्यवद्भिन्नसाध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वम् ।
(दी.२) साध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वस्याव्याप्यवृत्तिसाध्यकसद्धेतावव्याप्तिमाशङ्कयाह-साध्यवद्भिन्नेति । साध्यवद्भिन्ने यः साध्याभावस्तद्वदवृत्तित्वमर्थः ।
(जा.२) अव्याप्यवृत्तीति । कपिसंयोगी एतद्वक्षत्वात् इत्यादावित्यर्थः । इदञ्च येन रूपेण येन सम्बन्धेन च साध्यत्वं तदवच्छिन्नस्य
The Second definition of vyāpti. __ (T.2) (Nor,) The non-existence (of the reason) in the substratum which possesses the absence of that which is to be established and which is different form that which has that which is to be established.
(D.2) Non-occurence (of the reason) in that which has the absence of sādhya, which is different from that which has sādhya of the definition. There is fault of too narrow application in the valid reason, sādhya of which has incomplete occurence. So author says “Different from that which has sādhya” nonoccurence (of the reason) in that which has the absence of sādhya. [Non co-existence (of reason) with the mutual absence counter positive of which is that which has sādhya.. This is the meaning :]
(J.2) 'Non-partial existence' means in the inference; "this has the conjunction of monkey because of this tree-ness” etc.' This is due to inclusion of the absence of that which is to be established delimited by the state of being that which is to be

Page #113

द्वितीयं लक्षणम्
७७
साध्याभावस्य प्रवेशमादृत्य, अन्यथा तु व्याप्यवृत्तिसाध्यकेऽपि५० विशिष्टाभावादिकमादाय५१ दोषो बोध्यः । अव्याप्यवृत्तिसाध्यकेऽपि आकाशादिहेतावव्याप्त्यभावादाह २ सद्धेताविति । वृत्तिमद्धताविति तदर्थः । अव्याप्यवृत्तिसाध्यं यत्र तत्र सन् वर्तमानो यो हेतुस्तत्रेत्यर्थः, तेन
established by which from attribute and by which relation. Otherwise even in the inference, where the that which is to be established, is non-partially existent50, there is a fault taking in to account the absence of a qualified thing51 this should be known here. Author says “in the valid reason.” This is because there is no fault of too narrow application52 even in the inference where that which is to be established is a partialy existent and where ether etc. are reasons. In that reason, which abides something, this is the meaning of that expression. The partial existent that which is to be established is where, which reason exists there, in that reason, this is the meaning. Therefore even though there is no fault of too narrow application in the inference; "this has the absence of conjunction because this
50. व्याप्यवृत्तिसाध्यके-In the inference where sadhya has complete occurence
such as “this has substanece-ness because of earthness.” 51. fafretira-Qualified absence etc. absence of substanceness qualified
by water-ness, absence of absence of substance-ness and absence of
substance-ness by temporal relation. 52. 372|1614101G-Because of the fault of too narrow application. There is
no fault of too narrow application in the inference; "this has the conjuction of monkey because of ether” because ether does not exist anywhere, which is locus of the absence of the conjuction of monky which is the absence of sādhya.

Page #114

७८
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
संयोगाभाववान् गुणत्वादित्यादावव्याप्त्यभावेऽपि न क्षतिरित्यपि वदन्ति ।
___ (जा.३) ननु साध्यवद्भिन्नो यः साध्याभाववान् इत्यर्थे साध्याभाववत्पदवैयर्थ्यं साध्यवद्भिन्नावृत्तित्वस्यैव सम्यक्त्वात्, न चावृत्तित्वेन समं साध्यवद्भिन्नस्यान्वयाविवक्षणात्, साध्याभाववता सममेव तादात्म्येनैवान्वयविवक्षणान्न वैयर्थ्यमिति वाच्यम् । तथा सति साध्यवद्भिन्नात्मको यो मतुबर्थः सम्बन्धी तदवृत्तित्वस्य सम्यक्त्वे साध्याभावपदवैयर्थ्यध्रौव्यात् । अतः सप्तमीसमाससामर्थ्य व्याचष्टेसाध्यवद्भिन्ने इति । is a quality,” there is no harm, this is said by author.
(J.3) This is the objection if the meaning is that which is different from that which has that which is to be established, possesses the absence of that which is to be established, the expression “that which has the absence of that which is to be established,” will be purposeless because, then the nonexistence in that which has that which is to be established only will be correct definition. Nor it should be said that-there is not useless-ness because the cementic relation of that which is different from that which has that which is to be established, is not with non-existence, but it is stated to be desired with that which has the absence of that which is to be established by the relation identity, eventhough non existence in that relatum which is the meaning of matup in the form of that which is different from that which has that which is to be established is correct. Then the expression 'absence of that which is to be established is indeed useless. Therefore author supporting seventh compound says “in that which is different from that

Page #115

द्वितीयं लक्षणम्
9
on
तथा च साध्यवद्भिन्नस्य वृत्तावनन्वयात् यथा सन्निवेशे न वैयर्थ्यम् । साध्याभावे५३ साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तित्वविशेषणं तु अव्याप्यवृत्तिसाध्यकसङ्ग्रहार्थम् एव इत्याशयः ।
(जा.४) साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तिद्रव्यत्वादिमति पर्वतादौ धूमादेः
which has that which is to be established. Therefore there is no fault of useless-ness when it is included as it is, because that which is different from that which has that which is to be established is not semantically related with existence, The existence in that which is different from that which has that which is to be esablished is the qualifier of the absence of that which is to be established. 53 This qualification for the inclusion of the inference where that which is to be established is partially existent, this is the idea.
(J.4) There would be a fault of too narrow application or the fault of impossibility, because smoke exists in mountain etc., which is the substratum of substanceness, which exists in
53. HZ410-Absence of occurence (of reason) which is indicated by the
locus of the absence of sādhya and which (locus) is different from that which has sādhya. This is second definition. When this definition is accepted, there is no fault of too narrow application in the inference; 'this has the conjunction of monkey because of this tree-ness.' Though this tree is locus of absence of the conjunction of monkey in the root but this is not different from that which is locus of sādhya, because the conjunction of monkey also exists there such a locus of absence of sādhya is quality also where this tree-ness does not occurs. This is the idea.

Page #116

८०
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
सत्त्वादव्याप्तिरसम्भवो वा स्याद्, अतः - साध्याभावेति । न च कपिसंयोगी एतद्वृक्षत्वादित्यादेः सङ्ग्रहार्थम् अधिकरणभेदेन अभावभेदमादृत्य एव लक्षणमिदं कार्यं, तथा च साध्यवद्भिन्ने योऽभावस्तद्वदवृत्तित्वस्यैव सम्यक्त्वे साध्यपदवैयर्थ्यमिति वाच्यम् । प्रतियोगिता– संसर्गेण साध्यीयत्वेनैव साध्याभावस्य प्रवेशो, न तु अभावत्वेनापीति तद्वैयर्थ्यशङ्कानवकाशात्५४ ।
that which is different from that which has that which is to be established, therefore the expression "absence of that which is to be established" is used. It should not be stated that-for the inclusion of the inference, “this has the conjunction of monkey because of this tree-ness" taking in to account the theory the absence is different due to difference in substratum only, this definition should be made, therefore the non-existence in that which has the absence which exists in that which is different from that which has that which is to be established, is only correct definition. Hence the term 'the absence of that which is to be established' is useless. This is because there is inclusion of the absence of that which is to be established, as being connected with that which is to be established by the relation counter-positive-ness and not by the state of being absence, therefore there is no chance of the doubt of useless-ness.5 54
54. तद्वैयर्थ्यशङ्कानवकाशात् —There is no possibility of doubt of perposeless-ness of word "absence of sadhya' absence of occurence indicated by the locus of that which is qualified by sadhya by the relation of counterpositive-ness and which exists in that which is different from that which has sadhya, this is the meaning. Therefore here in form of

Page #117

द्वितीयं लक्षणम्
८१
(जा.५) वस्तुतः स्वप्रतियोगितावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन साध्यवद्भिन्ने वर्त्तते यः, साध्यतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन साध्यीयोऽभावः तद्वदवृत्तित्वमर्थः । तथा च साध्यतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन साध्यीयत्वार्थकस्य साध्यपदस्य अनुक्तौ स्वप्रतियोगितावच्छेदकीभूतसमवायादिसम्बन्धेन वयादिमतोऽन्यस्मिन् पर्वतादौ यः समवायाद्यवच्छिन्नवल्याद्यभावस्तद्वति धूमादेः सत्त्वादव्याप्तिः स्यात्, अतः तदुपात्तमिति नव्याः ।
(J.5) Infact the meaning is that, the non-existence in that which has that absence, of that which is connected with that which is to be established, by the relation which is determinant of the state of being that which is to be established, that (absence) which exists in that which has that which is different from that which has that which is to be established, by the relation which is determinant of the counter-positive-ness of absence of that which is to be established. Therefore when the expression that which is to be established', which means the state of being connected with that which is to be established by the relation which is determinant of the state of being that which is to be established, is not used there will be a fault of too narrow application, because of the smoke exists in that which has the absence of fire determined by relation inherence mountain etc., which (absence) exists which is different from that which has fire by the relation inherence which is determinant of the conuter-positive-ness of that itself, therefore that expression is used. This is stated by new logicians.
absence, the absence of sadhya is not included but it is included as a qualified by sādhya by relation of counter-positive-ness, therefore the word 'sādhya' is not meaningless.

Page #118

८२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
(जा. ६) केचित्तु व्याप्यवृत्तित्वाव्याप्यवृत्तित्वादिविरुद्धधर्माध्यासात्५५ संयोगाद्यभावस्यैव द्रव्यगुणाद्यधिकरणभेदेन भेदः, न तु गगनाद्यभावस्य, मानाभावात् । तथा च साध्यवद्भिन्नवृत्तिगगनाद्यभाववति पर्वतादौ धूमादेः सत्त्वादव्याप्तिः, अतः साध्यपदमित्याहुः, तन्मन्दं, गुणे गगनाद्यभावे गुणत्वादिसामानाधिकरण्यं, न तु द्रव्ये गगनाद्यभावे तथात्वम् इत्यादि प्रतीत्या गगनाद्यभावस्यापि गुणत्वादिसामानाधि
-
(J.6) Some logicians say that the absence of conjunction etc. only is different due to difference in substrat substance and quality etc., because of the imposition of two opposite attributes such as the state of being partial existence and state of being non-partial existence55, and not the absence of ether etc. because there is no proof. Therefore there is a fault of too narrow application. That's because smoke etc. occurs in mountain etc. which has the absence of ether etc. which (absence) exists in that which is different form that which has that which is to be established. Therefore the word "that which is to be established" is used, this is not correct, because there is a possibility of two opposite attributes such as the co-existence with quality-ness etc., and its absence, in the absence of ether etc., on the basis of the notion the absence of ether etc. "in
55. व्याप्यवृत्तित्त्वाव्याप्यवृत्तित्वविरुद्धधर्माध्यासात् – Because of the apprehention of
opposite attribtes, complete occurence and incomplete occurence, = non-occurence in that which is locus of it counter-positive is complete occurence, in that which is locus of it's ocunter-positive is incomplete occurence. Therefore absence of conjuction is different in the locuses as substance and quality, the absence of eather is not different in quality and substance because it has complete occurence.

Page #119

द्वितीयं लक्षणम्
८३
करण्यतदभावयोः विरुद्धयोः धर्मयोः सम्भवादिति दिक् ।
(जा.७) न च घटत्वघटाकाशसंयोगान्यतरत्वाद्यवच्छिन्नाभाववान् गगनत्वादित्यत्राव्याप्तिः, साध्यवद्भिन्ने घटे वर्त्तमानस्य गगनघटसंयोगात्मकसाध्याभावस्यापि अधिकरणे गगनादौ गगनत्वादिहेतोः सत्त्वादिति वाच्यम् । अभावाभावस्यातिरिक्ततामते एवैतल्लक्षणकरणादिति भावः
quality co-existence with quality-ness, in the absence of ether and not in substance co-existence with quality-ness in the absence of ether. This is the direction.
(J.7) Nor it should be stated, that there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference; this has the absence of that which is determined by the state of being one of them jarness and the conjunction of ether-ness because the reason' in the etherness etc. exits ether which also is the substratum of the absence of that which is to be established in the form of conjunction with ether and jar which absence exists in the jar which is different from that which has that which is to be established. This is because this definition is made taking in to account only the opinion of those who accept the absence of absence as separate category. This is the idea.

Page #120

तृतीयं लक्षणम् (त.३) साध्यवत्प्रतियोगिकान्योन्याभावासामानाधिकरण्यम् ।
(दी.३) कर्मादौ संयोगाद्यभावस्य भिन्नत्वे मानाभावादाहसाध्यवदिति।
(जा.८) भिन्नत्वे इति । द्रव्यनिष्ठसंयोगाभावतो भिन्नत्वे इत्यर्थः । मानाभावादिति । तथा चात्राव्याप्यवृत्तिसाध्यकसद्धेतावव्याप्तिरिति भावः।
The Third definition of vyāpti. (T.3) (Nor,) The not co-existence (of the reason) with such a mutual absence which has the substratum of that which is to be established as its counter-positive.
(D.3) There is no proof to accept the absence of sādhya which exists in movement is different, therefore author says - “Sadhyavaditi.”
(J.8) “In the state of being different,” In the state of being different from that which has the absence of the conjuntion existing in the substance is the meaning.
___Because of the absence of proof. Therefore there is a fault of too narrow application in the inference where that which is to be established is partially existent.56 This is the idea.
56. 372414?fa-Fault of too narrow application in the inference; “this has
conjunction of monkey because of this tree-ness.” Here the absence of conjunction which exists in quality which is different from that

Page #121

चतुर्थं लक्षणम् (त.४) सकलसाध्याभाववन्निष्ठाभावप्रतियोगित्वम् ।
(दी.५) हेतोः साध्यवत्पक्षभिन्नदृष्टान्तवृत्तित्वेन अव्याप्तेराह सकलेति ।
(जा.९) हेतोरिति । न च साध्यवत्प्रतियोगिकान्योन्याभावस्य केवलान्वयित्वादसम्भव५७ एव वक्तुमुचितो नाव्याप्तिरिति वाच्यम् ।
The Fourth definition of vyāpti. (T.4) (Nor,) The counter-positive-ness of the absence which besides in all substrata of the absence of that which is to be established.
(D.4) Because the reason exists in example which is different from subject which has sādhya, hence there is fault of too narrow application therefore author says-sakal (all).
(J.9) ‘Of the reason.' It should not be said that-there is a fault of impossiblilty only and not too narrow application. Because the mutual absence of that which has that which is to be established is pure affirmative.57 This is because in the
which has the absence of sādhya, is different from that absence of sādhya which exists in this tree, therefore the locus-ness of the absence of conjunction of monkey exists in this tree, also, there this tree-ness which is reason exists, so there is a fault of too narrow
application. 57. goddi-afecaia-Because of omni-present. In the inference such as 'this
has fire because of smoke' here also the mutual absence of both pot and fire, which also has that which has sādhya as counter-positive, exists everywhere, therefore there is a fault of impossibility.

Page #122

८६
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
वह्निमान् गगनादित्यत्रावृत्तिगगनादौ लक्षणसम्भवेन तस्यापि सद्धेतुतायाः स्वयं वक्ष्यमाणत्वादिति भावः । साध्यपदस्य सिद्धिकर्मतत्तद्व्यक्तिपरतया५८ तत्तद्व्यक्त्यवच्छिन्नान्योन्याभावासामानाधिकरण्यरूपस्य पर्यवसितार्थस्य द्रव्यं पृथिवीत्वादित्यादावेव सम्भवाद् गन्धवती पृथिवीत्वादित्यादावव्याप्तिकथनमित्यपि वदन्ति ।
( दी. ६) साकल्यं साध्याभाववति साध्ये च बोध्यम्, साध्याभावो वा साध्यतावच्छेदकावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताको ग्राह्यस्तेन
inference; 'this has fire because of ether,' there in ether which is non-existent, there is a possibility of application of the definition this is also a valid reason which will be mentioned later on. This is the idea.
The term 'sādhya' means the particular individual object of the certain knowledge of that which is to be established'58 therefore the concluding meaning in the form non-'co-existence of the mutual absence of that which is determined by the state of that particular individual, is applicable only in the inference like; 'this is a substance because of earth-ness', therefore the fault of too narrow application is mentioned in the inference; 'it has smell because of eather-ness' author says this also.
(D.5) All-ness should be known as the qualification of that which has absence of sadhya and sadhya or the absence of sadhya should be known as having counter-positive-ness which is determined by that which is determinant of the state of being
58. सिद्धिकर्मतद्व्यक्ति— Siddhi- the certainty of sādhya. Karm-the object of certainity of sadhya.

Page #123

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
८७
विपक्षैकदेशनिष्ठाभावप्रतियोगिनि व्यभिचारिणि नातिव्याप्तिः, न वा नानाव्यक्तिसाध्यकसद्धेतावव्याप्तिः ।
(जा. १०) ननु सकलस्य साध्यप्रतियोगिकाभावस्याधिकरणाप्रसिद्ध्या व्यभिचारिणि अतिव्याप्तिवारणाय यदि साध्याभावस्य विशेषणं साकल्यं तदा वह्निमान् धूमादित्यादिसद्धेतावव्याप्तिः, तत्रापि तत्तत्सपक्षावृत्तित्वावच्छिन्नाभावरूपस्य ५ ९ तत्तद्विपक्षावृत्तित्वावच्छिन्नाभावरूपस्य च
sadhya. Therefore there is not a fault of too wide application in invalid reason which is counter-positive of the absence which exists in the part of contradictory subject. Nor there is fault of too narrow application in the reason which has many individuals as sadhya.
(J.10) Here is the objection if 'all' is admitted qualifier of the absence of that which is to be established, to avoid the fault of too wide application in a devious reason due to non-establishment of the substratum of all absences of that which is to be established, there would be a fault of too narrow application in the inference; 'this has fire because of smoke,' there also is a fault of nonestablished (sabstratum) the collection of the absence of that which is to be established in the form of the absence of that which is determined by non-existence in that individual counter-subject and in the form of the absences of that which is determined by non-existence in the particular individual definite subject.59
60. तद्तद्विपक्षावृत्तित्त्वावच्छिन्नत्वाभावः – The absence of that which is determined by occurence of reason in that particular subject as water etc. तद्तत्सपक्षावृत्तित्वावच्छिन्नत्वाभाव The absence of that which is determined by occurence in that particular subject as mountain etc.

Page #124

८८
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
साध्यप्रतियोगिकाभावस्तोमस्य अधिकरणाप्रसिद्धरत आह-साध्याभाववतीति । तथा च साकल्यं न साध्याभावविशेषणम्, अतो नाप्रसिद्धिरिति६० भावः ।
___(जा.११) केचित्तु ननु धूमवान् वह्नः इत्यादि व्यभिचारिणि अतिव्याप्तिः, साध्याभाववद्यत्किञ्चिन्निष्ठाभावप्रतियोगित्वादित्यत आहसाकल्यं साध्याभाववतीति । ननु एवमपि साध्याभाववन्निखिलान्तर्गते महानसादौ वर्तमानस्य अभावस्य प्रतियोगित्वं धूमादौ नास्तीति
Therefore author says ‘in that which has the absence of that which is to be established', hence ‘all' is not the qualifier of the absence of that which is to be established, therefore there is no fault of non-established60 (substratum).
___ (J.11) Some of logicians say, that there is a fault of too wide application in the devious reason as; “it has smoke because of fire.” This is because it (fire) is the counter-positive of the absence which exists in something which has the absence of that which is to be established. Therefore ‘all' is connected with that which has the absence of that which is to be established. Here is an objection-in this way also there the fault of too narrow application will remain intact, because the counter-positive-ness of the absence which exists in kitchen etc., which is included in
61. Fiftros:-No fault of non-establishment. If the "all” is a qualification
of the absence of sādhya then only is the fault of non-establishment of locus of all absences of sādhya, if “all” would be qualifier of locus of the absence of sādhya, then there would not be fault of nonestablishment this the idea.

Page #125

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
अव्याप्तितादवस्थ्यमत उक्तं साध्ये चेति । तथा च सपक्षो महानसादिर्न सकलसाध्याभाववान् इति अदोषः ।
-
८९
(जा. १२) प्राञ्चस्तु व्यभिचारिणि अतिव्याप्तिवारणार्थं साध्याभाववति यावत्त्वविशेषणे दत्त एव साध्ये यावत्त्वविशेषणमव्याप्तिवारकतया सार्थकं भवति, अतः साध्याभाववत्येव साकल्यं प्राक् प्रयोजयति साकल्यमित्यादिना इत्येवमवधारयन्ति तन्मन्दं, साध्याभाववति साकल्यानुक्तावतिव्याप्तिवारकतया एव साध्ये साकल्यविशेषणस्य प्रथमतः सार्थकत्वसम्भवात् । अन्यथा गगनावृत्तिधर्मवान्
that which has the absence of that which is to be established, does not exist the reason smoke etc. therefore it is said "that which is to be established," thus the definite subject kitchen etc. is not that which has the absence of all that which is to be estalished, therefore there is no fault.
(J.12) Old logicians hold that-when to avoid the fault of too wide application in devious reason the qualifier 'all' is connected with that which has the absence of that which is to be established, only then the qualifier ‘all' in that which is to be established is fruitfull as a remover of the fault of too narrow application. Therefore 'all' is connected with that which has the absence of that which is to be established in first by the expression ‘all.’ This is not correct, because there is a possibility of fruitfullness of the qualifier ‘all' with that which is to be established, in first, by removing the fault of too wide application. Otherwise there will be fault of too wide application in the inference; 'this has the thing which dose not abide in ether, because of substance

Page #126

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
द्रव्यत्वादित्यादौ पटत्वादिलक्षणतत्तत्साध्यव्यक्त्यभाववद् गुणादिनिष्ठाभावप्रतियोगिनि द्रव्यत्वादौ अतिप्रसङ्गादिति६१ ध्येयम् ।*
(जा.१३) ननु साध्यवति अपि द्वित्वाद्यवच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकस्य सकलसाध्यप्रतियोगिकाभावस्य सत्त्वादसम्भवः,६२ किञ्च सकल
ness' because of the over extention61 in substance-ness' which is the counter-positive of the absence which exists in quality etc. which has the absence of individual particular that which is to be established, in the form of cloth-ness etc.
(J.13) There is fault of impossibility62 because the
61. अतिप्रसङ्गात्-Because of fault to over-extension. Even fall", is not used as
qualifier of that which has the absence of sādhya, if it is not accepted as qualifier of sādhua in the inference; ‘it has the quality which does not occur in the ether because it has substance-ness', etc. also, that attribute which does not exist in ether therefore absence of sādhya would be the absence of potness also which exists in one locus as such quality etc., there the absence of substance-ness exists counter-positive of the absence is substance-ness. Therefore there is fault of over-extension of fourth definition. In this way when ‘all is accepted as qualifier of sādhya, there would not be over-extention because qualitiness also is included in to sādhya. The absence of qualitiness does not exists in quality. The absence of qualitiness exists in eather etc. where reason
substance-ness occures. Therefore there is not fault too wide application. ★ Editor's Note 'इत्थञ्च प्रथमतः साध्ये साकल्यविशेषणोपादाने गुणत्वादेरपि सङ्ग्रहात्
तदभावनान्न गुणादिः किन्तु गगनमात्रं तत्र हेतोर्वृत्तित्वान्नातिव्याप्ति This text is available in Printed book of 24|1843 which is explained by Vāmācaran
bhattacārya, but not translated by translator. 62. 374749:-Fault of impossiblity. In the inference such as “this has fire
because of smoke.” The absence of both fire and pot also, is such

Page #127

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
९१
पदोत्तरनाम्ना सकलसाध्यप्रतियोगिताकाभाववतोऽनुपस्थापनात् तेन समं सकलपदस्य कर्मधारयोऽपि अनुपपन्न इत्यत आह- साध्याभाव इति । तथा च साध्याभाववत्येव साकल्यं देयं न तु साध्येऽपीति भावः ।
(जा.१४) साध्याभाववति साकल्यदानस्य प्रयोजनमाह-तेनेति । विपक्षैकदेशः कश्चिद्विपक्ष: साध्यनिष्ठसाकल्यस्य साध्यसामान्याभावस्य
absence of all those which are to be established having the counter-positive-ness determined by two-ness, exists in that, also which has that which is to be established. More over by the name followed by the word 'All', that which has the absence of all those which are to be established, 'is not denoted therefore 'karmadhāraya' compound of the word 'all' with it, is not applicable. Hence author says 'absence of that which is to be established.' Therefore word 'all' should be connected with that only which has the absence of that which is to be established and not with that which is to be established also. This is the idea. (J.14) Author says the reason of the use of 'all' connected with that which has that which is to be established by the word 'therefore.' The part of counter-subject (means) someone of counter-subjects. Author says the purpose of the inclusion of 'allness' in that which is to be established, or inclusion of absence of that which is to be established in general by the expression 'or
absence, counter-positive of which is sadhya in the locus as such absence naturally mountain etc., there is no absence of smoke but the absence of pot etc., the counter-positive-ness as this absence does not exist in smoke. Therefore there is fault of impossiblity. Absence of both things can be taken as the absence of sadhya in all valid inferences. Therefore there is fault of impossibility and not a fault of too narrow application.

Page #128

९२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
वा निवेशस्य फलमाह-न वेति । एकव्यक्तिसाधके सकलसाध्योक्तौ अपि अव्याप्तिः अग्रे स्थास्यतीत्याशयेन नाना इत्युक्तम् ।*
(जा.१५) अव्याप्यवृत्तीति । कपिसंयोगी एतत्त्वादित्यादौ इत्यर्थः। यद्यप्यग्रे हेत्वभावस्यापि प्रतियोगिवैयधिकरण्यावच्छिन्नस्यैव निवेश: करणीयः इति अव्याप्यवृत्तिहेतावव्याप्तिः सम्भवति तथापि यथाश्रुतमूलस्य न तत्र अव्याप्तिरित्यावेदयितुं व्याप्यवृत्तिहेतूक्तिः ।
(दी.७) अव्याप्यवृत्तिसाध्यकव्याप्यवृत्तिसद्धेतावव्याप्तेर्व्यभिचारिणि चाव्याप्यवृत्तावतिव्याप्तेर्वारणाय अभावद्वये प्रतियोगि
not. There would be a fault of too narrow application in the inference where that which is to be established is only one individual when all that which is to be established is mentioned taking in to account this ‘many is stated by author.
(J.15) “Partial existent means in the inference; 'this has the conjunction of monkey, because of this tree-ness.' Though in later the absence of reason' also, is to be included as delimited by non-existence with its counter-positive. Therefore the fault of too narrow application in the partial existent reason also possible, yet to inform that there is no fault of too narrow application according to original text ‘non partial existent reason' is stated.
(D.7) Both absences should be known as non-existent with counter-positive, to avoid over-extantion in invalid reason,
★ Editor's Note : न चैकव्यक्तिसाध्यकस्थलेऽपि द्वित्वाद्यवच्छिन्नाभावमादायाऽसम्भवः, न त्वव्याप्तिरिति
वाच्यम् । व्यासज्यवृत्तिधर्मानवच्छिन्नत्वविशेषणेनैव तद्वारणसम्भवात् । This text is available in printed book of '2114 with Jāgdisi which is explained by Vāmācaranbhattacārya, but not translated by translater.

Page #129

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
९३
व्यधिकरणत्वं बोध्यम् ।
___(जा.१६) व्यभिचारिणीति । एतद्वक्षत्ववान् कपिसंयोगाद् इत्यादावित्यर्थः । अभावद्वये इति । साध्याभावे हेत्वभावे चेत्यर्थः । अत्र च साध्याभावे प्रतियोगिवैयधिकरण्यं साध्यताघटकसम्बन्धेन प्रतियोगिनो यदधिकरणं तदवृत्तित्वं, तेन धूमाद्यभाववतोऽपि अयःपिण्डादेः कालिकसम्बन्धेन धूमादिमत्त्वेऽपि नातिव्याप्ति:६३ । हेत्वभावे प्रतियोगि
which has incomplete occurence, and fault of too narrow application in the valid reason which has complete occurence but sādhya of which has incomplete occurence.
(J.16) In the devious reason means-in the inference; 'this has tree-ness because of conjunction of monkey'. In both absences means in the absence of that which is to be established, and in the absence of reason. Here the nonexistence with counter-positive of it means non-existence in that which is to be the substratum of counter-positive by the relation which is determined by the state of being that which is to be established, therefore there is no fault of too wide application63 even though smoke exists in the hot-iron-ball by
63. Fifchifa:-No fault of too wide application. In the expression
"occurence in that which is not locus of counter-positive” the locusness of counter-positive if it is taken by only relation in general, there would be fault of over-extention in the inference such as "it has smoke because of fire.” When the locusness of counter-positive is mentioned by the relation of the determinant of 'sādhyatā’ there would not be fault of too wide application, counter-positive of the absence of smoke does not exist in hot-iron-ball by the relation

Page #130

९४
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
वैयधिकरण्यं तु प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन प्रतियोग्यनधिकरणत्वघटितं बोध्यम् । तेन अयमात्मा ज्ञानादित्यादौ साध्याभाववतो घटादेविषयतया हेत्वाभावप्रतियोगिमत्त्वेऽपि नाव्याप्ति:६४ ।
(दी.८)हेत्वभावोऽपि प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिव्यधिकरणः । तत्प्रतियोगित्वञ्च हेतुतावच्छेदकरूपेण बोध्यं,
the temporal relation. Non existence with its counter-positive in the absence of the reason should be known by the relation, which determined the counter-positive-ness, therefore 64there is no fault of too narrow application in the inference; 'this is soul because of knowledge', though jarness etc. which are substrata of the absence of that which is to be established, has the counter-positive-ness of the absence of reason by relation subject-ness.
___ (D.8) The absence of reason also should be known as non-co-exsisting with counter-positive, determined by the determinant of counter-positive-ness and that counter-positiveness also determined by the determinant of the state of being reason. Therefore there is no fault of too narrow application in the inference; where substernece-ness etc. is sādhya and
conjunction, there is not absence of fire, therefore there is no fault of
too wide application. 64. नाव्याप्ति:-No fault of too narrow application, when the locusness of
counter-positive of the absence of reason is mentioned by relation in general. There would be fault of too narrow application in the inference; “it is soul because of knowledge.”

Page #131

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
तेन द्रव्यत्वादौ साध्ये विशिष्टसत्तादौ नाऽव्याप्तिः, न वा विशिष्टसत्तात्वादिना तादृशाभावप्रतियोगिनि सत्तादौ अतिप्रसङ्गः६५ ।
(जा.१७) हेत्वभावोऽपि इति । अपिना साध्याभावसङ्ग्रहः । तेन विशिष्टसत्तावान् जातेरित्यादौ नातिव्याप्ति:६६ । यद्यपि साध्या
qualified existence etc. is reason. Nor there is fault of overextention65 in counter-positive of such absence determined by state of being qualified existence.
(J.17) The absence of reason also here by the expression ‘also' the absence of that which is to be established is included, therefore there is no fault of too wide application 66 in the
65. 3fa445:-Fault of over-extension. When the counter-positive-ness of
the absence of reason is stated to be determined by the determinant of the state of being reason, there would not be a fault of over-extension in the inference; "this is substance because of existence” which is not co-existent of its counter-positive and which exists in quality etc. which is the locus of the absence of substenceness and which is nonlocus of qualified existence determined by qualified existence-ness. The counter-positive-ness of the absence of qualified, exists in the existence. Therefore there is the fault of over-extension when the counter-positive-ness of the absence as the reason is mentioned as determined by the determinant feature there would not be overextention because the counter-positive-ness of the absence of qualified existence is not determined by the state of being existence which is the
determinant of the state of being reason. This is the idea. 66. Fifcufa:-No fault of over-extension when the counter-positive-ness
of the absence of reason is not mentioned as determined by the

Page #132

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
भावोऽपीत्येवं क्रमेण वक्तुमुचितम् अपिशब्दादेव हेत्वभावस्य लाभसम्भवात् तथापि तत्प्रतियोगित्वञ्च इत्यग्रिमत्मपदेनानिर्दिष्टहेत्वभावस्य परामर्शासम्भवात् हेत्वभावप्रतियोगित्वञ्च इत्यभिधाने च ग्रन्थगौरवादित्यमभिधानम् ।
(जा.१८) प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगीति । प्रति
inference; "this has qualified existence because of generic attribute. Though it should be mentioned by such order that the absence of that which is to be established also mentioned, because by the word ‘also''the absence of reason can be understood yet by the expression that conuter-positive-ness' the absence of reason which was not early mentioned, that could not be taken. And if the counter-positive-ness of the absence of reason is to be stated there is cumber-some-ness of the text.
(J.18) In the expression 'counter-positive determined by that which determines the counterpositive-ness', the term
relation which determines the state of being the reason, there would be a fault of over-extention in the inference; “this is different from soul because of substence-ness.” The absence of substence-ness also exists in the substratum of the absence of sādhya by the temporal relation, the counter-positive-ness of the absence occures in substance, therefore there is a fault of over-extention. When the counter-positive-ness is taken by the relation of the determinant of state of being reason there would not be fault of over-extention, because the counter-postive-ness which is determined by temporal relation is not determined by the relation inherence which determined state of being reason.

Page #133

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
९७
योगिपदं प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकताघटकसम्बन्धेनावच्छेदकस्य वैशिष्ट्यलाभाय, तेन हृदादौ कालिकादिसम्बन्धेन धूमात्वाद्यवच्छिन्नस्य काष्ठादेः संयोगसम्बन्धेन सत्त्वेऽपि नाव्याप्तिः । तत्प्रतियोगित्वं हेत्वभावप्रतियोगित्वं । हेतुतावच्छेदकरूपेणेति । हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन इत्यपि बोध्यम्, तेनात्मभिन्नं द्रव्यत्वादित्यादौ साध्याभाववति आत्मनि वर्तमानस्य प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन प्रतियोगिव्यधिकरणस्य कालिकादिसम्बन्धेन प्रतियोगित्वेऽपि द्रव्यत्वस्य नातिव्याप्तिः ।
'counter-positive' is used to get qualified-ness of determinant by the relation which determines the state of being determinant of counter-positive-ness. Therefore there is no fault of too narrow application in the inference; "it has fire because of smoke even though the wood etc. which has smoke etc., by the temporal relation, exists in lake etc. by the relation conjunction. That counter-positive-ness means the counter-positive-ness of the absence of the reason. Determined by the determinant of the state of being reason. By the relation which determines the state of being a reason also should be known. Therefore there is no fault of too wide application in the inference; “this is different from soul because of substance-ness' though substance-ness is the counter-positive of the absence of substance-ness by temporal relation which absence dose not exists with its counterpositive by the relation which determines the counter-positiveness that absence exists in soul, which is the substratum of absence of that which is to be established.

Page #134

१
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
(जा.१९) न च हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन प्रतियोगिवैयधिकरण्योक्तौ एव अतिव्याप्तिवारणसम्भवात्, हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धेन प्रतियोगित्वविवक्षा व्यर्थेति वाच्यं, तथा सति निर्धूमत्वव्याप्यवान् निर्वह्नित्वादित्यादौ निर्वह्नित्वभेदमादायैव लक्षणसम्भवे निर्धूमत्वव्याप्येत्याधुत्तरग्रन्थवक्ष्यमाणाव्याप्त्यलग्नतापत्तेरिति ध्येयम् ।
___ वस्तुतः निर्वह्नित्वस्य व्याप्यवृत्तितया तद्धेतुस्थले हेत्वभावे प्रतियोगिव्यधिकरणत्वं न देयं व्यर्थत्वात्, परन्तु हेतुतावच्छेदकसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नत्वं वाच्यम्, अत: नाग्रिमग्रन्थासङ्गतिरिति ध्येयम् ।
(J.19) It should not be said that-there is a possibility of removal of the fault of too wide application only if it is mentioned different substratum-ness of counter-positive non-existance by the relation which determines the state of being a reason. Therefore desire to say counter-positive-ness as delimited by the relation which determines the state of being reason is use-less. This is because in that case there is possibility of the application of definition by taking in to account the mutual absence of the difference from fire in the inference; “this has that which is pervaded by the absence of smoke because of absence of fire”. So the too narrow application which is to be mentioned in the later text would be irrelevant, this should be noted.
Indeed, the absence of fire is a non-partial existent, hence where this is a reason there non-existence with its counter-positive should not be mentioned with regard to the absence of reason, cause it will be useless, but the state of being determined by the relation which determines the state of

Page #135

चतुर्थं लक्षणम्
९९
(जा.२०) हेत्वभावे प्रतियोगितावच्छेदकावच्छिन्नवैयधिकरण्यविवक्षायाः फलमाह-तेन द्रव्यत्वादाविति । अन्यथा साध्याभाववति गुणादौ विशिष्टसत्ताभावस्य सत्तारूपप्रतियोगिसमानाधिकरणत्वादव्याप्तिरेव स्यादिति भावः ।
____ (जा.२१) अत्र तु द्रव्यत्वसाध्यतायां साकल्याप्रसिद्ध्या अव्याप्तेरुक्तविवक्षयापि अप्रतीकारात्-आदिपदम् । तेन गुणवत्त्वादिसाध्यस्योपग्रह: द्रव्येतरासमवेतमात्रं वा प्रकृते द्रव्यत्वमिति ध्येयम् ।
being a reason should be added, therefore there is no irrelevance of later text, This should be understood.
___ (J.20) Author says the fruit of desire to be mentioning non-existence with that which is determined by the determinant of counter-positive-ness in the respect of the absence of reason by the expression 'there-fore in substanceness' etc. Otherwise there would be a fault of too narrow application because of the absence of qualified existence is coexistent with its counter-positive in quality etc. in the form of existence and so on, which have the absence of that which is to be established. This is the idea.
___ (J.21) Here where substance-ness is that which is to be established ‘all is not established, there is a fault of too narrow application which is not avoided, eventhough there is desire to apply that qualifier. Therefore the word and etc. is used, by this the state of having quality etc. as that which is to be established, is included or only non-inherence in that which is different from substance is the meaning of substance-ness, in present case this should be noted. Author says the result of desire to

Page #136

हेतुतावच्छेदकरूपावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगित्वविवक्षाया फलमाह-न वेति । सत्त्वादाविति । द्रव्यत्वादौ साध्ये इति अनुषज्यते ।
पञ्चमं लक्षणम् (त.५) साध्यवदन्यावृत्तित्वं वा, केवलान्वयिनि अभावात् ।
(दी.९) यत्र एकव्यक्तिकं साध्यं विपक्षो वा तत्र निर्धूमत्वादिव्याप्ये तत्त्वेन साध्ये निर्वह्नित्वादौ चाव्याप्तिस्तत्र हेत्वभावस्य वल्यादेः प्रत्येकं यावद्विपक्षावृत्तित्वादत आह-साध्यवदिति ।
(जा.२२) यत्र एकव्यक्तिकमिति । तथा च द्रव्यं पृथिवीत्वाद्
mention the counter-positive-ness determined by the attribute which determines the state of being reason by the expression or not.' 'In the existence etc.' should be followed by when substance-ness is that which is to be established.
The Fifth definition of vyāpti. (T.5) (Nor,) The non-occurrence (of the reason) in the substratum which is different from that which has that which is to be established, this is because all these definitions are not applicable in the pure affirmative reason.
(D.9) Where sādhya is one individual thing, or contradictory subject, there which is pervaded by the absence of smoke as its own capacity is sādhya and the absence of fire is reason, there is a fault of too narrow application, because the absence of reason fire etc. everyone does not exists is all controdictiory subjects therefore author says sādhyavaditi.
(J.22) 'Where one individual is that which is to be

Page #137

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
१०१
इत्यादावव्याप्तिः सकलसाध्याप्रसिद्धेरित्यर्थः । ननु इतोऽप्यस्वरसात् साध्यसामान्याभावस्यैव निविष्टत्वात् साध्ये साकल्यं न देयमेव इत्यत आह - विपक्षो वेति । विपक्ष: साध्याभाववान्, तद्धटयवृत्तिधर्मवान् तद्घटान्यत्वादित्यादावव्याप्तिः साध्यभाववत्तद्घटस्य साकल्याप्रसिद्धेरिति
*
भावः ।
(जा.२३) साध्याभावन्निष्ठान्योन्याभावप्रतियोगितानवच्छेदकीभूताभावप्रतियोगित्वं वक्तव्यमतः दोषान्तरमाह - निर्धूमेति कश्चित् ।
established.' Therefore there is fault of too narrow application in the inference; 'this is substance because of earth-ness'. Because all those which are to be established, are not established, this is the meaning. ‘All', should not be connected with that which is to be established because even more due to incongruity, only the absence of that which is to be established in general is included, therefore author says 'or counter-subject.' Countersubject means that which has the absence of that which is to be established. There is fault of too narrow application in the inference; 'this has the attribute which dose not abide in that pot because it is different from that pot etc.,” because ‘all-ness' of that pot which is abode by the absence of that which is to be established is not established. This is the idea. (23) The counter-positive-ness of the absence which is not determinant of the conuter-positive-ness of the mutual absence, which exists in that, which has the absence of that
Editor’s Note : ‘एकव्यावर्तक इत्यनुषज्यते । तथा च यत्रैकव्याक्तिरेव साध्याभाववती तत्र' This text is available in printed book of 'व्याप्तिपञ्चक' with Jagdisi which is explained by Vāmācaraṇbhattacārya but not translated by translator.

Page #138

१०२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
(जा.२४) ननु साध्यादिभेदेन व्याप्तेर्भेदात् यत्रैकव्यक्तिरेव विपक्षस्तत्र लक्षणे साध्याभाववति साकल्यविशेषणं न देयमिति दोषान्तरमाह-निर्धूमत्वादिव्याप्य इति ।
निर्धूमत्वस्य साध्यत्वे यत्रैकव्यक्तिकमित्यनेनैव गतार्थता स्यादतो व्याप्यपर्यन्तं, नि—मत्वव्याप्यस्यापि स्नेहादेः स्नेहत्वादिना साध्यत्वे
which is to be estalished should be stated. Therefore author points out another fault by the expression 'absence of smoke'. This is stated by some one.
(J.24) Where only one individual is the counter-subject there in the definition ‘all should not be applied with that which has the absence of that which is to be established. This is because vyāpti is different due to difference in that which is to be established. Therefore author says another fault by the expression that which is pervaded by the absence of smoke.
When the absence of smoke is that which is to be established, then by the expression only 'where one individual, the purpose may be achieved, therefore author goes till that which is pervaded, oily-ness which is pervaded by the absence of smoke also is that which is to be established by the state of being oily-ness there is no fault of non-inclusion because of deviation of the absence of fire. Therefore author said 'when that which is to be established by the state of being that. When that which is to be established is in the form of that which is pervaded by the absence of smoke, this is the meaning.
Every individual, there is fault of two narrow oplication, because Absence of reason in the form of the fire in the kitchen, etc. is non-existent in mountain which is included in all those

Page #139

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
१०३
वह्न्न्यभावस्य व्यभिचारित्वादसङ्ग्रहो न दोष इत्यत उक्तं तत्त्वेन साध्ये इति । निर्धूमत्वव्याप्यत्वेन साध्ये इत्यर्थः ।
प्रत्येकमिति । हेत्वभावस्य महानसीयादिवह्नेः साध्याभाववत् सकलान्तर्गतपर्वताद्यवृत्तित्वादव्याप्तिरिति ६७ भावः । निरुक्तप्रतियोगिवैयधिकरण्यावच्छिन्नसाध्याभावव्यापकतावच्छेदकं निरुक्तप्रतियोगिवैयधिकरण्यावच्छिन्नयद्रूपावच्छिन्नाभाववत्त्वं तद्रूपवत्त्वं व्याप्तिरित्युक्तौ तु न दोष इति ध्येयम् ।
(दी. १०) अत्र अन्योन्याभावस्य साध्यवत्वावच्छिन्नप्रति
—
which has the absence of that which is to be estalished, this is the idea. Therefore there is a fault of too narrow application67. The state of having that attribute which is the state of being absence determined by that particular attribute and which is determined by said non-existence with its conuter-positive and which is determinant of the state of being pervaded and of the absence of that which is to be and established, which is determined by said non co-existent with its counter-positive is vyapti, when it is stated there is no any fault, it should be understood.
(D.10) Here state of having counter-positive-ness of mutual absence is determined by state of having sadhya is
68. अव्याप्तिरिति—There is a fault of too narrow application. The kitchen fire which is absence of fire can't be accepted in the mountain which has similies absence of that which is to be established in that kitchen the similar fire of mountain does not exist, so by the word the similar absence which occures in the locus of similar absence of that which is to be established, the absence of reason that is absence of absence of fire can't be accepted therefore there is fault of too rarrow application

Page #140

१०४
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
योगिताकत्वं व्युत्पत्तिबललभ्यम् । न हि भवति नीलो घटो घटादन्य६८ इति । इति व्याप्तिपञ्चकस्य रघुनाथशिरोमणिकृता
दीधितिव्याख्या समाप्ता ॥ (जा.२५) ननु साध्यवत्प्रतियोगिकान्यत्वस्य धूमादिमति सत्त्वादव्याप्तिरत आह-अत्रेति । तथा च साध्यवतपदेन निरूढलक्षणया उपस्थापितस्य साध्यतावच्छेदकविशिष्टसाध्यवत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकस्य अन्यपदार्थैकदेशे अन्यत्वे तादात्म्येन अन्वयात् साध्यवति च साध्यवत्त्वावच्छिन्नभेदासत्त्वात् न अव्याप्ति:६९ । गुरुधर्मस्य अवच्छेदक
apprehended through denotative function, because bluepot is not diffferent from a pot.68
Thus the commentary on Vyāpti-Pañcaka by Raghunātha siromaņi is over.
__ (J.25) The difference from that which has that which is to be established, exists in that which has smoke. Therefore there is a fault of too narrow application, hence author says 'here.' In this way, there is no fault of too narrow application69 because in that which has that which is to be established, the
68. न हीति–“Not just" This is different from the jar. Here jar is connected
with the meaning of difference by relation state of being counterpositive-ness determined by potness different from that which has sādhya which is here also the thing that which has sādhya is connected with difference by the relation of state of being counter
positive-ness determined by state of being sādhya. 69. नाव्याप्तिरिति-No fault of too narrow application. Because of meaning of

Page #141

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
204
त्वोपगमाच्च द्रव्यं पृथिवीत्वादित्यादौ द्रव्यत्वत्वविशिष्टद्रव्यत्ववत्वावच्छिन्नभेदाप्रसिद्ध्या नाव्याप्तिरिति भावः '
७० I
mutual absence determined by the state of having that which is to be established, does not exist because of that, which has the counter-positive-ness determined by the state of having that which is to be established qualified by determinant of the state of that which is to be established which is presented by word 'that which is to be estalished', is related, by identity relation with 'difference' which is the part of the meaning of different, when the cumbersome attribute is accepted as determinant, there is no fault of too narrow application70 in the inference;
fifth definition is the absence of occurence (of reason) in the locus of mutual absence, counter-positive-ness of which is indicated by state of being determinant which is determined by the determinant of the state of being sadhya. Therefore the mutual absence of that which has fire and jar and the mutual absence of kitchen which has fire, cannot be taken and the mutual absence of that which has fire only can be taken according to early mentioned mutual absence of locus, that absence exists in water etc., where smoke does not exist. Therefore there is no fault of too narrow application in the inference, "this has fire because of smoke." This is the idea.
70.
:-No fault of too narrow application. Just counterpositive-ness does not happen determined by heavy property is not proved and the attribute which is qualified by heavy property cumbersome also is not proved. Therefore, taking in to account the mutual absence of that which has substanceness qualified by subsance-ness the fault of too narrow application in the inference "this is substance because of earthness." This is the idea.

Page #142

१०६
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
(जा.२६) यद्धर्मविशिष्टबोधकपदसमभिव्याहृतेन अन्यादिपदेन उपस्थापिते अन्यत्वादौ तद्धर्मावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकत्वप्रकारेणैव तादात्म्येन अन्वयो, न तु तद्धाश्रयप्रतियोगिताकत्वेन इत्यत्र व्युत्पत्तौ प्राचां संवादमाह न हीति। तथा च तादृशव्युत्पत्त्यस्वीकारे नीलघटे घटप्रतियोगिकभेदसत्त्वात् नीलघटो घटान्य इत्यपि व्यवहारः स्यादिति भावः ।
(जा.२७) अत्र च द्रव्यं घटान्यदित्याद्यप्रयोगात् यद्विशिष्टप्रति
'this is substance because of earth-ness' due to nonestablishement of the mutual absence of that which is determined by the state of having substance-ness qualified by substance-ness-ness. This is the idea.
(J.26) The difference which is expressed by the word different which is semantically connected with the word which conveys that qualified by which particular attribute, is related by identity as having as qualifier the state of having counterpositive-ness determined by that particular attribute, and not having as qualifier the state of having the counter-positive-ness which exists in that which is the substratum of that particular attribute. In this theory author points out agreement of old logicians by the expression ‘not because. Therefore if such theory is not accepted there would be such a usage that 'the blue-pot is different from a pot. This is because there is mutual absence which has a pot as its counter-positive. This is the idea.
(J.27) And here the mutual absence as having counterpositive-ness qualified by which particular attribute should be known by the term difference etc. because there is no usage as

Page #143

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
१०७
योगिकत्वेन भेदः अन्यादिशब्देन बोध्यः, तदवृत्तिधर्मस्यैव अनुयोगितावच्छेदकत्वात् तत्र घटो घटान्य इत्यस्य वारणासम्भवात् नीलघटत्वस्य धर्मितावच्छेदकत्वानुधावनमिति मन्तव्यम् ।
(जा.२८) नीलो घटो घटान्य इत्येव सम्यक् पाठः तथैव प्रकृतोपयोगित्वसङ्गतेघटादन्य इति पाठस्तु साध्यवदन्य इत्यत्र पञ्चमीसमासे लुप्तविभक्तिस्मारितप्रतियोगित्वे प्रकृत्यर्थतावच्छेदकावच्छिन्नत्वस्य संसर्गमर्यादया भानमादृत्य कथञ्चित् सङ्गमनीयः ।।
(जा.२९) घट: पटो न इत्यादौ पटपदं मुख्यार्थपरमेव, न तु प्रकृत
substance is different from a pot, because the attribute which is not there is determinition of substanceness. There is possibility of avoiding the usage 'the pot is different from pot, therefore author had to mention the blue-jar-ness, as the determinant of the state of being substratum, this should be noted.
___(J.28) “The blue pot is different from a pot' this is a correct version, by this only there is consistency with present use, the text ‘different from a poť should be supported any how taking in to account the apprehension through the limitation of relation, of state of being determined by the determinant of the state of being present meaning, in the counter-positive-ness which is reminded by hidden case in the fifth compound in the expression different from that which is different from that which has that which is to be established.'
___(J.29) In the expression the pot is not a cloth the word ‘cloth' reveals main meaning and not that which has the counter-positive-ness determined by pot-ness just as in present

Page #144

१०८
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
इव पटत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकपरं निपातातिरिक्तस्थल एव नामार्थयोधंदान्वयस्य अव्युत्पन्नतया नपदोपस्थाप्यभेदे पटत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकत्वसंसर्गेणैव पटस्यान्वयसम्भवात् । पटत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकत्वन्तु पटत्वमवच्छिन्नत्वं प्रतियोगित्वञ्चेति त्रितयमेव, विशेष्यविशेषणभावापन्नसंसर्गः, न तु वस्तुगत्या पटत्वावच्छिन्नं यत् प्रतियोगित्वं तन्मात्रं, पटो न इत्यत्र प्रतियोगितायां पटत्वावच्छिन्नत्वमानस्य अनुभवसिद्धत्वात्, अन्यथा प्रतियोगिताव्यक्तिभिरेव तत्तद्विशिष्टबुद्ध्युपपत्तौ पटत्वादेस्तदवच्छेदकत्वमेव न स्यात्, मानाभावात् । अत एव
case. This is because the difference relation of two meanings of two names is not apprehended in the case, other then nipāt only. Therefore there is possibility of the connection of cloth with difference which is presented by negative term by the relation state of having counter-positive-ness determined by cloth-ness. (And the state of having counter-positive-ness determined by cloth-ness,) Here cloth-ness, the state of being determined by cloth-ness and counter-positive-ness all the three are relations, which are apprehended by qualifier and qualified relation-ship and not indeed the counter-positive-ness determined by cloth-ness alone, because in the expression this is not a cloth' it is proved by experience. Otherwise there would be the knowledge of thing qualified by that particular attribute, through individual counter-positive-ness only, cloth-ness would not be determinant of that because there is no proof. Therefore in kevalānvayi-chapter author him-self has said, that in the notion 'there is absence of fire' fire-ness, state of being

Page #145

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
१०९
केवलान्वयिग्रन्थे वह्निर्नास्तीत्यत्र वह्नित्वमवच्छिन्नत्वं प्रतियोगित्वञ्च संसर्गमर्यादया भासते इति स्वयमप्युक्तम् ।
(जा.३०) इत्थमेव च प्रमेयं नास्ति कम्बुग्रीवादिमान् नास्तीत्यादिशाब्दबोधानां संसर्गकोटावेव प्रतियोगितायां प्रमेयत्वाद्यवच्छिन्नत्वावगाहितया भ्रमत्वं, संसर्गप्रकारसाधारणविशेष्यविशेषणभावस्यैव भ्रमत्वघटकत्वात्, अन्यथा स्वरूपसम्बन्धेन प्रमेयत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगित्वस्य अलीकतया अखण्डतादृशसम्बन्धेन प्रमेयस्य अभावधर्मिणि अन्वयासम्भवेन भ्रमत्वानुपपत्तेः, सदुपरागेणाप्यसतः संसर्गमर्यादया भानस्य
determined, and counter-positive-ness all these three are apprehended through the limitation of relation (samsargamaryādā).
(J.30) In this way, verbal apprehensions such as there is the absence of object of valid knowledge, there is absence of that which has conch like neck, are error like in the side of relation, when in the counter-positive-ness is determined by state of being knowable (prameyatva) etc. because the qualifier-qualified relationship which is common to relation and qualifier is only included in the state of being error, otherwise the counter-positive-ness determined by the state of being knowable (prameyatva) by the relation self-some-ness (svarūpa) is non-existent, therefore there is no possibility of relation of knowable with locus of absence by part-less such a relation, hence that would not be an error. This is because the apprehension on non-existent by imposition of existent through the limitation of relation is not accepted by the author of ‘maņi’

Page #146

११०
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
मणिकृता अनङ्गीकारात् । क्लृप्तेन पटत्वाद्यवच्छिन्नप्रतियोगित्वसम्बन्धेन च अभावे प्रमेयस्य सत्त्वेन तादृशसम्बन्धेन भ्रमत्वस्य वक्तुमशक्यत्वात् , पटत्वादेरन्वयितानवच्छेदकतया तदवच्छिन्नाप्रतियोगित्वसम्बन्धेन प्रमेयत्वादिविशिष्टस्यान्वये निराकाङ्क्षत्वाच्च, अन्यथा घटवति अपि घटो नास्तीत्यादेः प्रमात्वापत्तेः, तत्तद्घटत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगित्वसम्बन्धेन घटविशिष्टस्य घटविशेषाभावस्य तत्र सत्त्वात् ।
(जा.३१) एतेन सत्तासमवायिनि अपि गुणादौ विशिष्टसत्तात्वावच्छिन्नस्य समवायेन असत्त्ववत् घटत्वाद्यवच्छिन्नप्रतियोगित्वसम्बन्धेन घटत्वावच्छिन्नवतोऽपि घटाद्यभावस्य न तादृशसम्बन्धेन प्रमेयत्वाद्य
and by known relation in the form of counter-positive-ness determined by cloth-ness the knowable exists in absence, therefore by this relation, it cannot be treated as error and because clothness is not determinant of state of having relation by the relation of counter-positive-ness determined by that, clothness there is no expectancy for the connection of that which is qualified by state of being knowable. Otherwise the notion that there would be no pot valid in the locus of a pot because there is absence of a particular pot which (absence) is qualified by the pot by the relation of counter-positive-ness determined by pot-ness.
(J.31) By this way, in quality etc. which is inherent of existence also, there that which is determined by the state of being qualified-existence dose not exist. In the same way the absence of a pot has that which is determined by pot-ness by the relation of counter-positive-ness determined by pot-ness, it

Page #147

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
१११
वच्छिन्नत्वम् । अतः प्रमेयं नास्तीत्यादौ घटत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगात्वसम्बन्धेनैव प्रमेयत्वावच्छिन्नत्वस्यैव अभावांशे भ्रमत्वमित्यपि प्रत्युक्तं, घटत्वादेरन्वयितानवच्छेदकतया तदवच्छिन्नप्रतियोगित्वसम्बन्धेन प्रमेयत्वविशिष्टस्य अन्वये निराकाङ्क्षतया तथा शाब्दस्य असम्भवाद् इति ध्येयम् ।
___ (जा.३२) नीलो घटो नास्तीत्यादौ नीलघटत्वस्य अन्वयितावच्छेदकत्वे तादृशधर्मावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगित्वमेव संसर्गो, न तु नीलत्वादिप्रत्येकधर्मावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगित्वम्, नीलपटस्य पीतघटस्य च अधिकरणे तादृशप्रयोगापलापापत्तेः नीलत्वोपलक्षितस्य घटत्वमात्रस्य
has no the state of being substratum of that which is determined by the state of being knowable, by that relation. Therefore in the notion that 'there is no knowable there is the state of being error of the state of being determined by state of being knowable, in the absence by the relation of counterpositive-ness determined by potness. This also is refuted, because there is no expectancy for the connection of that which is qualified by state of being knowable, by the relation of counter-positive-ness by that (pot-ness) because pot-ness is not the determinant of the state of being related, therefore there is no possibility of verbal cognition, this should be understood.
(J.32) “There is not blue pot,” here when the state of being blue pot is a determinant of state of being related, the counterpositive-ness determined by that attribute alone is a relation and not the counter-positive-ness determined by every individual like blue potness etc. this is because there would be the fault of refuting of the usage of that in the substratum of blue and yellow pot. Where only potness indicated by blue-ness by the relation

Page #148

११२
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
अन्वयितावच्छेदकत्वस्थले तु नोपलक्षितघटत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगित्वमेव, तथा नीलो संयोगेन घटो नास्तीत्यादौ तृतीयाविभक्तेर्नावच्छिन्नत्वमर्थः संसर्गीभूतप्रतियोगितायां तदन्वयासम्भवात्,* किन्तु अवच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकत्वं प्रतियोगितामात्रं वा अवच्छिन्नत्वसंसर्गेण संयोगादेस्तत्रान्वयादेव विशिष्टलाभात् ।
(जा.३३) न च एवं संयोगेन घटाभावस्यैव समवायेन घटविशिष्टद्रव्यत्वाभावतया समवायेन कपाले घटो नास्तीति व्यवहारापत्तिः, तृतीयान्तसमभिव्याहारस्थले तदुपस्थाप्यप्रतियोगित्वस्यैव संसर्गतया
conjunction there counter-positive-ness determined by indicated pot-ness, is a relation. In the notion, 'there is not a pot by the relation of conjunction' semantic the meaning of third case is not the state of being determined, because in that case there would not be the connection of that with the counter-positive-ness, which is a form of relation, but state of having a counter-positive-ness determined by (somathing) or only counter-positive-ness is the relation, due to the connection of conjunction with it by the relation of state of being determined by (something), there is apprehension of a qualified thing.
(J.33) And it should not be stated that-in this way, there should be usage that 'there is not a pot in the half of the pot by the relation of inherence,” this is because the absence of pot by
★ Editor's Note : ‘पदार्थापदार्थयोरन्वयस्य निराकाङ्क्षत्वात्, पदार्थः पदार्थेनान्वीयते इति
नियमाच्च' This text is available in printed book of 'व्याप्तिपञ्चक' with Jāgdiśi which is explained by Vāmācaranbhattacārya but not translated by translator.

Page #149

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
११३
भानस्य व्युत्पन्नत्वात् समवायावच्छिन्नघटत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगिताकाभावस्य च कपाले विरहात् ।
(जा.३४) अस्तु वा घटत्वावच्छिन्नत्वस्येव संयोगादिसम्बन्धावच्छिन्नत्वस्यापि प्रतियोगित्वांशे संसर्गमर्यादयैव भानं तृतीयान्तसमभिव्याहारस्य नियामकत्वाच्च नातिप्रसङ्गः । 'घटानधिकरणं; भूतलम्' इत्यादौ तु लक्षणया अधिकरणपदमेव घटाधिकरणार्थकं घटपदं तु तात्पर्यग्राहकम्, अन्यथा अनधिकरणपदेन अधिकरणसामान्यभिन्नत्वोक्तौ च भूतले तस्य बाध: स्यात् । न च घटान्वितस्यैव अधिकरणस्य भेदस्तत्र नञा बोधनीयः समासान्तर्गतनत्र उत्तरपदार्थमात्रान्वयित्वव्युत्पत्तेः ।
relation conjunction is identical with the absence of substanceness qualified by pot by the relation inherence, because when there is proximity of word ending with third case, the counter-positive-ness which is expressed by that, is apprehended as a relation and the absence having the counterpositive-ness determined by pot-ness and the relation of inherence, does not exist in the part of the pot.
___(J.34) Or let it be a cognition of the state of being determined by the relation of conjunction limitation in the counter-positive-ness by the expectancy (samsargamaryādā) just like the state of being determined by pot-ness and because of the proximity of word ending with third case is a limiter. Therefore there is not fault of too wide application. In the notion “the ground is non substratum of pot’ the word substratum denotes the substratum of pot by implication and the word pot is conveyer of the intention of speaker, otherwise

Page #150

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
अन्यथा नीला नीलघटो घटो घट इत्यादौ नीलघटान्यस्य घटत्वं नीलाप्रमेयः पट इत्यादौ च नीलप्रमेयान्यस्य पटत्वं प्रतीयते । वस्तुतः सम्बन्धिकपदस्थले व्युत्पत्तिवैचित्र्यात् प्रतियोगितानवच्छेदकं घटानधिकरणमित्यादौ घटद्यन्वितस्यैवाधिकरणादेर्भेदो भासते* इति परमार्थः ।
(जा.३५) पीतः शङ्खो नास्तीत्यादि शाब्दबोधस्तु शङ्खत्वावच्छिन्नतया न प्रतियोगित्वमवगाहते तन्मात्रस्यान्वयितानवच्छेदकत्वात्, शङ्खवत्तया निश्चिते धर्मिण्यपि तादृशप्रयोगात्, परन्तु पीतशङ्खत्वा
if by the word; “non-substratum” the difference from all substrata is stated, there would be contradiction, in the ground, and the mutual absence of subtratum related with a pot should not be conveyed by negation, because the negation in the compound should be connected with only the meaning of next word' this is the rule other-wise in the usage blue-non-pot is a pot,' pot-ness of other than blue pot' and in blue non-knowable would be a cloth' cloth-ness is of other than blue knowable, is cognized. Infact in the case the word which denotes relative due to difference in notions in the case of the usage ‘nondeterminant of the counter-positive-ness,' that 'non substratum of pot, etc. the difference of substratum etc. related with pot is apprehended, this is the reality.
(J.35) 'There is not yellow conch,' in this verblal
★ Editor's Note : अन्यत्र त्रिपदतत्पुरुषानुपगमेऽपि घटस्य नाधिकरणं, प्रतियोगिताया
नावच्छेदकम् - इत्यादिरीत्या त्रिपदतत्पुरुषेण विशिष्टलाभसम्भवादिति । This text is available in printed book of 'व्याप्तिपञ्चक' with Jagdisi which is explained by Vāmācaranbhattacārya, but not translated by translator.

Page #151

पञ्चमं लक्षणम्
११५
वच्छिन्नप्रतियोगितात्वेन संसर्गमर्यादया प्रतियोगित्वमवगाहते । नत्रादिपदानां यद्धर्मविशिष्टवैशिष्ट्यावगाहित्वोपस्थाप्याभावधर्मिकान्वयबोधजनकत्वं तद्धर्मावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगित्वेन प्रतियोगितासंसर्गधीजनकत्वव्युत्पत्तेः । इयान् तु विशेषः-यत् घटो नास्ति इत्यादिशाब्दबोधे सांसर्गिकप्रतियोगित्वावगाहितप्रसिद्धन घटत्वाद्यवच्छिन्नप्रतियोगितात्वेनैव निरूपिता, पीतः शङ्खो नास्तीत्यादौ तु पीतशङ्खत्वावच्छिन्नप्रतियोगितात्वेन
cognition the counter-positive-ness is not apprehended as being determined by conch-ness because that only is not determinant of the state of being related (anvayitā), because which is definite locus of conch there also is found such usage, but the counter-positive-ness is cognized as having the state of being counter-positive-ness determined by yellow-conch-ness through the limitation of relation (samsarga-maryādā). “Negative words bring out verbal apprehension which has the absence as substratum presented by that (knowledge) which has the relation of that which is qualified by which particular attribute, as being determinant by that particular attribute, it brings out the knowledge of counter-positive-ness relation,' this is the rule.
This is the peculiarity here. In verbal cognition as 'there is absence of a pot' there, objectiveness of the counter-positiveness as being a relation is not established there the counterpositive-ness is mentioned as being counter-positive-ness determined by pot-ness only is mentioned and in the verbal apprehension there is absence of yellow conch' the counterpositive-ness determined by yellow cronch-ness is not

Page #152

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
अप्रसिद्धेनैव इत्यादिकं बहुतरम् ऊहनीयम् ।
इति जगदीशतर्कालङ्कारकृता विवृत्तिनाम्नी दीधितिव्याख्या समाप्ता
established and so on. Many things are should be thinkable here.
Thus the Vivritti commentary on Dīdhiti by Jāgadića Tarkālankāra ends.

Page #153

Appendix-1 A Terminology (San.-Eng.)
अतिव्याप्ति
अत्यन्त
अत्यन्तभाव अधिकरण
अधिकरण, आधार, आश्रय अधिकरणत्व
अनवस्था
अनुमान अनुमती अनुयोगी अन्योन्याभावः भेदः
Fault of too wide application, fault of over extension Absolute, constant Absolute-absence, constant absence Substratum Substratum, locus State of being substratum, state of being locus, locusness Regress, infinitude Inference Inferential knowledge Relatum Mutual basence, difference Semantic relation, connection, grammatical connection, agreement Non-established Unsublated Absence Absenceness Name-ability Theory of meaning Identity, non-difference Exaltation
अन्वय
अप्रसिद्ध अबाधित
अभाव
अभावत्व अभिधेयत्व
अभिहितान्वयवाद
Indefinable
अभेद, तादात्म्य अभ्युदय अलक्ष्य अवच्छिन्न अवच्छिन्नत्व अवच्छेदक
Determined State of being determined Determinant, limiter

Page #154

व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
अवच्छेदकता
State of being determinate, limitary, controller
Non-occurrent
अवृत्ति अव्यभिचरितत्वम्, व्याप्तिः, अविनाभाव अव्याप्ति
अव्याप्यवृत्ति
अव्याप्यवृत्तित्व
Absence of deviation Fault of too narrow application, too narrow definition, under-extenuation Incomplete occurent, partial occurent, partial existent Incomplete occurent, partial existences, partial occurrence Perrvederness Fault of impossibility Incongruity Ether
अशेषत्वम् असम्भव
अस्वरस:
Substratum, locus
Superstratum Occurrence
आकाश, गगन आधार, आश्रय, अधिकरण आधेय आधेयता आश्रय, अधिकरण, आधार उपमिती उपराग उपाधि उपाय कालिक सम्बन्ध / कालिक
विशेषणता केवलान्वयि गगन, आकाश
Locus, substratum Anology Imposition Adjunct Method
Temporal relation Pure-affirmative Ether Graspping Filter-action Generic attribute
ग्रह
चालनीय न्याय जाति:

Page #155

परिशिष्ट - १ अ
ज्ञान
तात्पर्य
तादात्म्य, अभेद
दृष्टान्त
धर्म
ध्वंस, प्रध्वंसाभाव
पक्ष
पृथकत्व
प्रतियोगिन्
प्रतीति
प्रमाण
प्रमेय
प्रसिद्ध
प्रागभाव
प्रामाण्य
बोध
भेद, अन्योन्याभाव
मूर्त
लक्षणा
लक्ष्य
विपक्ष
विभाग
विशिष्टाभाव
विषयता
वृत्तित्वम्
व्यतिरेक
व्यभिचारी
व्यभिचारी हेतु
व्यापक
Apprehension Intention of speaker
Inntity, non-difference
Example
Attribute
Posterior(absence), destruction
Subject
Separateness
Counter positive
Notion
Testimony
Object of Valid Knowledge
Established
Prior (absence)
Validity
Cognition
Mutual absence, difference
Material, Substance
Implication, secondary meaning
Definable
११९
Contradictory subject, counter subject
Disjunction
Qualified absence
Subjectness
Occurrence, Existernce, State of being
existent
Disagreement
Deviation
Devious reason
Pervasive

Page #156

१२०
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
व्यापकत्वम्
Pervasiveness व्याप्तिः, अविनाभाव
Conductance, invariable relation, operation व्याप्ति
Inveriable concomitance व्याप्ति, अव्यभिचरित्वम्,अविनाभाव Invariable relation, conductance, operation,
pervasion, invarible, concomitance व्याप्य
Pervaded व्याप्यवृत्ति
Non-partial existent व्याप्यवृत्तित्व
Non-partial existence व्युत्पत्ति
Denotative function शाब्दबोध
Verbal Cogition संयोग
Conjunction,connection,contact सङ्ख्या
Number सत्त्व
Existence (one of generic attributes) सपक्ष
Definite subject समभिव्याहार
Proximity समवाय
Inherence समवायिकारण
Inherence-cause साध्य
Probondum, that which is to be established सामर्थ्याभाव
Absence of capacity स्वरूपसम्बन्ध
Self-linking connectors, relation self-someness Reason (which brings out the knowledge to hidden thing.)

Page #157

धर्म
Appendix-1 B
Terminology (Eng.-San.) Absence
अभाव Absence of capacity
सामर्थ्यभाव Absence of deviation
अव्यभिचरितत्वम्, व्याप्ति: अविनाभाव Absenceness
अभावत्व Absolute, constant
अत्यन्य Absolute-absence,constant absence अत्यन्ताभाव Adjunct
उपाधि Anology
उपमिती Apprehention
ज्ञान Attribute Congition
बोध Conductance, invariable relation, व्याप्तिः, अविनाभाव
operation Conjuction, connection, contact
संयोग Constant absence, absolute-absence अत्यन्ताभाव Constant, absolute
अत्यन्त Contradictory subject, counter subject विपक्ष Counter positive
प्रतियोगिन् Definable
लक्ष्य Definite subject
सपक्ष Denotative function
व्युत्पत्ति Determinant, limitor
अवच्छेदक Determined
अवच्छिन्न Deviation
व्यभिचारी Devious reason
व्यभिचारी हेतु Disagreement
व्यतिरेक Disjunction
विभाग Established
प्रसिद्ध Ether
आकाश, गगन Exalitation
अभ्युदय

Page #158

१२२
Example
Existence (one of generic attraibutes) Fault of impossibility
Fault of too narrow application, too narrow defination, under-extention
Fault of too wide application,
fault of over extention
Filter-action
Generic attribute
Grammatical connection
Graspping
Identity, non-difference
Incongruity
Indefenable
Inference
Inferential knowledge
Infinitude, regress
Inherence
Inherence-cause
Intention of speaker
Invariable relation, conductance,
दृष्टान्त
सत्त्व
operation, pervasion, invarible,
concomitance
असम्भव
अव्याप्ति
Inveriable concomittence
Locus, substratum
Locusness, substratumness
अतिव्याप्ति
Implication, secondary meaning
Imposition
Incomplete occurent, partial existentnce, अव्याप्यवृत्तितत्व
चालनीय न्याय
जाति:
अन्वय
partial occurrence
Imcomplete occurent, partial occurent, अव्याप्यवृत्ति
partial existent
ग्रह
अभेद,
लक्षणा
उपराग
तादात्म्य
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
अस्वरसः
अलक्ष्य
अनुमान
अनुमिती
अनवस्था
समवाय
समवायिकारण
तात्पर्य
व्याप्ति, अव्यभिचरितत्त्वम्, अविनाभाव
व्याप्ति
आश्रय, अधिकरण, आधार अधिकरणत्व

Page #159

परिशिष्ट-१ ब
१२३
मत
उपाय अन्योन्याभावः भेदः अभिधेयत्व तादात्म्य, अभेद अप्रसिद्ध अवृत्ति व्याप्यवृत्ति व्याप्यवृत्तित्व प्रतीति सङ्ख्या प्रमेय आधेयता वृत्तित्वम्
व्याप्तिः, अविनाभाव, अव्यभिचरितत्वम्
Material, substance Method Mutual absence, difference Name-ability Non-difference, identity Non-established Non-occurrent Non-partial existence Non-partial existent Notion Number Object of Valid Knowledge Occurrence Occurrence, existence, state of
being existent Operation, invariable relation,
conductance, pervasion Pervaded Pervasion, invariable-concomitance,
conductance, operation Pervasive Pervasiveness Pervertedness Posterior(absence), destruction Prior (absence) Probondum, that which is to
be established Proximity Pure-affirmative Qualified absence Reason (which brings out the
knowledge to hidden thing.)
व्याप्य व्याप्तिः, अविनाभाव
व्यापक
व्यापकत्वम् अशेषत्वम् ध्वंस, प्रध्वंसाभाव प्रागभाव साध्य
समभिव्याहार केवलान्वयि विशिष्टाभाव

Page #160

१२४
Regress, infinitude
Relation self-some-ness
Relatum
Self-linking connectors, relation
self-some-ness
Semantic relation, connection,
Separateness
State of being determinate, limitor,
controler
State of being determined
State of being substratum, state of
being locus, locusness
grammatical connection, agreement
Subject
Subjectness
Substance, material
Substratum
Substratum, locus
Superstratum
Temporal relation
Testimony
Theory of meaning
Unsublated
अनवस्था
स्वरूपसम्बन्ध
अनुयोगी
स्वरूपसम्बन्ध
Validity
Verbal Cognition
अन्वय
पृथकत्व अवच्छेदकता
अवच्छिन्नत्व
अधिकरणत्व
पक्ष
विषयता
मूर्त
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
अधिकरण
अधिकरण, आधार, आश्रय
आधेय
कालिक सम्बन्ध / कालिक विशेषणता
प्रमाण
अभिहितान्वयवाद
अबाधित
प्रामाण्य
शाब्दबोध

Page #161

That Which is to be → Absence established
Fire
—
Appendix-2 A Figures (Eng.)
Fig.-1
Substratum
Absence
Fig.-1A
Lake
Occurrence → Absence
Occurrence
Water
-
Reason
Abdence
Smoke

Page #162

१२६
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
Fig.-2 (1) That Which is to be established
(15) (16) Counter Positivesness (14) Occurrence - Absence
(2)
/ (5) ▼
(17)
(6)
Absence of that to be established
(11) 7
Reason
(18)
/ (4) Locus of that which is to be established
(3)
Mutual absence
(7)
(8)
(10)
Different
(9)
Fig.-2 A
ce of fire
|(15)
(19)
(1)
(17) (18) Fire Counter
Occurrence — Absence Positivesness
Absence of fire (2) / (5)
(11) I (4) (6)
|(12)
Water Smoke
(16) Kitchen (7) Mutual absence
(20) (3)
(8)
(13)
Lake (10)
(9)

Page #163

परिशिष्ट - २ A
That which to be is
established (1)
Fire (1)
(2)
ล
Locus of that which
to be is established
(3)
Mountain (3)
(4)
(4)
(7) Occurrence
(6)
Mutual absence
(9)
(5)
Substratumness
(12)
(6)
(5)
Mutual absence
(7) Occurrence
(10)
Fig.-3
(10)
Substratumness
(9)
Substratum
(11)
Fig.-3 A
(8)
(8)
(12)
Lake
(11)
(13) Water
(14)
(16) (18), (19) Occurrence - Absence
(20)
Substratumness (14)
(13)
(15)
(15)
(19) (20) Occurrence - Absence
(16)
१२७
Reason
(17)
(18)
(17) Substratumness
(21)
Smoke
(22)

Page #164

१२८
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
Fig.-4 That Which is to be is established — Absence (3)
(1) (2)
(9)
(8)
Counter Positiveness
|(10) Reason
(11)
Absen
(7)
(6)
Sbstratum
(5)
Fig.-4 A
Fire — (1) (2)
Absence (3)
Counter Positiveness
(9) (10)
(4)
(8)
Absence of smoke
(7)
Reason (11)
(6)
Lake etc.
(5)

Page #165

परिशिष्ट - २ A
That Which is to be
is established (1)
(2)
Locus of that which
to be is established (3)
That Which is to be
is established (1)
(2)
Mountain
(3)
(4)
(4)
Fig.-5
Mutual
Absence
(5)
Fig.-5 A
Mutual
Absence
(5)
(6)
Lake (7)
(6)
(8)
(10), (11) Occurrence - Absence
(9)
(8)
Sbstratum (7)
| (10)
१२९
(9) (12) (13) Occurrence -Absence
Water
(11)
|(12)
Reason
(13)
| (14)
Smoke
(15)

Page #166

Appendix-2-B व्याप्तिपञ्चकम् । १. साध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वम् ।
Fig.-1
साध्यम् → अभावः
वृत्तित्वम् → अभावः
हेतुः
अधिकरणम्
Fig.-1A
वृत्तित्वम् → अभावः
वह्निः → अभावः
जातम्
धूमः

Page #167

परिशिष्ट-२ B
२. साध्यवद्भिन्नसाध्याभाववदवृत्तित्वम् ।
Fig.-2 (१) साध्यम्
(१४) वृत्तित्वम् ५ अभावः
१५) (१६)
(१७)
प्रतियोगिता
साध्याभाव
(११)
/(१३
(२)
हेतुः
(१२)
(१८)
(४)
(७) भेदः
(३)साध्यवान् -
भिन्नम् (९)
(१०)
Fig.-2 A
(१) वह्निः
(१४) वृत्तित्वम (१७) (१८)
अभावः
प्रतियोगिता
(१५)
वयभाव
(११)
(२)
जातम
धूमः
(१६)
(२०)
(४)
(१२) / (७) भेदः | /(१३)
(३)महानसः
(१०)
(९)

Page #168

१३२
३. साध्यवत्प्रतियोगिकान्योन्याभावासामानाधिकरण्यम् ।
Fig.-3)
आधेयता आधेयता
साध्यम् (१)
(२)
साध्यवान्
(३)
वह्निः (१)
(२)
पर्वतः
(३)
(8)
(8)
अन्योन्याभावः
, (५)
अधिकरणता
(९)
|(१२)
(५)
(६)
(६)
१० )
(१०)
अन्योन्याभावः
(१०)
Fig.-3/A
(७)
आधेय
अधिकरण
(९)
(८)
(८)
(१२)
हृदः
अधिकरणम्
( ११ )
( ११ )
(१६) (१८) (१९)
( १७ )
(१५)
1/(24)
( १३ )
(१६)
(१४) |
(१३) जलम्
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
अधिकरणता (१४)
(१५)
आधेयता
―
(१८)
अभावः
(१९) ( २० ) अभावः
| (२१)
अधिकरणता (१७)
|(20)
हेतु:( २१ )
धूमः
(२२)

Page #169

परिशिष्ट-२ B
४. सकलसाध्याभाववन्निष्ठाभावप्रतियोगित्वम् ।
Fig.-4 साध्य (सकलम्) - अभावः (३) , प्रतियोगिता
(२)
।
(१)
अभावः (७)
हेतुः
(६)
(११)
(सकलकम्) अधिकरणम्
Fig.-4/A
वह्निः (सकलम्) - अभावः (३)
(९) प्रतियोगिता
(१०)
(२)
(१)
८)
(
५)
धूमाभावः (७)
(११)
अधिकरणम् (६) (सकलकम्)

Page #170

१३४
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
५. साध्यवदन्यावृत्तित्वम् । Fig.-5
वृत्तित्वम् (१०) अभाव:
साध्यम् (१)
(१२)
हेतुः
(२)
भेदः (५)
(८)
(१३)
(४)
(६)
अधिकरणम्
साध्यवान्
(३)
(७)
वह्निः (१)
Fig.-5/A
(९) (१२) (१३) वृत्तित्वम् - अभावः
| (१४) (८) | जलम् (११) धूमः
(१५) भेदः (५)
(१०)
(२)
पर्वत
(४)
हृदः (७)
(३)

Page #171

Appendix-3 Brief Introduction of
Prof. Dr. Baliram Shukla (Elder son of Pandit Hariram Shastri Shukla (Famous #41400)) Education -
Honoured as Acharya in First class at Sanskrit University, Varanasi. Completed M.A. in Philosophy at Kashi Hindu University, Varanasi.
Ph.D. from Delhi University, Delhi. Important Works –
Anumān Pramāņa (347414 441) (Published) Nyāyasidhāntamañjarī-commentary (PRF461-1432-2||CH) (Published) A basic Course of Indian Logic. (Published) Aatmatva Jātivicār (31hra Hifafaar) (Edited) (Published) Aatmadarśanam (3416464f-4) (Edited) (Published) Navyanyāya ke Paribhasik Padarth (नव्यन्याय के पारिभाषिक पदार्थ)
(1st part) Other Works —
Nearly 50 Research papers published in different Magazines. Presented Research papers and successfully Participated in Seminars.
Rewards —
Honoured as 'Nyāyabhusana' (P2490) by the Chief of Shri Rāghavendra Swami Ma-h Mantrālaya, Andhrapradesh. Rewarded by Shri Moraya Goswami Temple Chinchawad, Pune for the great contribution in Philosophy and Sanskrit.

Page #172

१३६
व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्
Honoured by Various Acaryas and Institutes. Delivered Lectures at —
Shri Rāmānuj Darśan college, Varanasi. Shri Lal Bahādur Shāstri Central Sanskrit University, New Delhi. Worked as Head of the Philosophy Department at University of Pune. Helped with the Guidelines to Research scholars for Ph.D. Written and published Articles in Hindi-Marathi-Sanskrit and English. Invited for Delivering lectures by the various Universities. Invited for Assembly regarding the Debate by different Sanskrit Institutes.

Page #173
Appendix-4 Bibliography (1) नव्य न्याय के पारिभाषिक पदार्थ - डॉ. बलिराम शुक्ल, पुणे युनिवर्सिटी. (2) न्यायकोश-प्रो. भीमाचार्य झळकीकर भांडारकर प्राच्य विद्या संशोधन मन्दिर, पुणे (1996) (3) व्याप्तिपञ्चकम्-सं. वामाचरण भट्टाचार्य, प्रका. भा. खेलाडीलाल संकटाप्रसाद संस्कृत पुस्तकालय कचौडी गली, वाराणसी-१ (सं. 2045) (4) Dictionary of Paninian Grammatical Terminology - J. A. F. Roodbergen-Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Pune (2008) (5) Webster's Dictionary - Random House, New York, (1996).