________________
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
