Verse 86

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

अनुमानविरोधश्च व्याप्तेः सर्वत्र साधने ।
न विरुद्धेन धर्मेण व्याप्तिर्हेतोः प्रकल्पते ॥ ८६ ॥

anumānavirodhaśca vyāpteḥ sarvatra sādhane |
na viruddhena dharmeṇa vyāptirhetoḥ prakalpate || 86 ||

In all the arguments, the invariable concomitance (premiss) is contrary to inference; and there can be no invariable concomitance of the probans on the basis of a contrary (false) character.—(86)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Having refuted in detail the arguments put forward for proving the existence of Cod, the following Text proceeds to urge the defects in the Invariable Concomitance (Premiss, on which the Theist bases his arguments),.and thereby to establish his own view:—[see verse 86 above]

In every one of the arguments put forward (by the Theist), the Invariable Concomitance that has been cited as between the Probans and the Probandum, is contrary to Inference,—as is going to be explained later on.

Question—“Why is not this contrariness to Inference urged against the conclusion (of the Theist)?”

Answer—It would be so urged if the conclusion formed part of the Proof (Reasoning). As a matter of fact however, the Conclusion does not, either directly or indirectly, form part of the proving of the Probandum; hence when what is going to be done is the urging of objections against the proof of the Probandum, if the party urged the defects in the Conclusion, he would become subject to the Clincher of ‘Urging what is not a defect’, It is for this reason that in connection with the statement of proofs, the defects of the Conclusion should not be urged. If in some cases, a defect in the Conclusion is actually urged, there also it should be taken as having been urged only for the purpose of demolishing the Invariable Concomitance.—Or such instances may be regarded as possible only in cases where the Conclusion:alone has been asserted (without any reasoning in support of it).

Question—“Even at the time that the Invariable Concomitance is put forward, how can there be contrariness to Inference?”

Answer—There can be no invariable concomitance, etc.—‘Contrary character’—is that which is opposed to all Means of Valid Cognition, false; as such a character would be impossible (non est), an invariable concomitance with it would be impossible; certainly there can be no invariable concomitance with what does not exist.—(86)