Verse 1398-1399

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

पततोऽस्येति कार्यं हि ध्रुवं हेतोर्विशेषणम् ।
अन्यथा व्यभिचारित्वं दुर्निवारं प्रसज्यते ॥ १३९८ ॥
कार्यताव्यवहारस्तु तस्य विस्मरणे सति ।
यदि साध्यस्त्रिरूपः स्यात्पूर्वसिद्धनिदर्शनात् ॥ १३९९ ॥

patato'syeti kāryaṃ hi dhruvaṃ hetorviśeṣaṇam |
anyathā vyabhicāritvaṃ durnivāraṃ prasajyate || 1398 ||
kāryatāvyavahārastu tasya vismaraṇe sati |
yadi sādhyastrirūpaḥ syātpūrvasiddhanidarśanāt || 1399 ||

‘Falling’ must be made a qualification in the probans; otherwise ‘inconclusiveness’ (falsity) would be inevitable.—(1398)

If what is meant to be proved (asserted in the conclusion) is that between the two (the pain and the insect) there is the relation of cause and effect,—which has been forgotten,—then the probans would be ‘three-featured’, as there would be a corroborative instance provided by previous experience.—(1399)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged “If the epithet falling is not introduced, and the Probans (Premiss) is stated in the general form ‘because its appearance is felt’,—then the Premiss cannot be a part of the Conclusion.”

Answer:—[see verses 1398-1399 above]

The qualification must be there; otherwise the Premiss would be falsified by reference to the Pain caused by other insects.—(1398)

It might be urged that “what is meant to be proved is the relation of Cause and Effect—for the benefit of one who has forgotten it,—then, in that case, the Probans would become ‘three-featured’, as the Corroborative Instance would be provided by such well-known cases as that of Smoke and Fire.—(1399)