Verse 1645-1647

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

तदाऽपि गेहायुक्तत्वं दृष्ट्याऽदृष्टेर्विनिश्चितम् ।
अतस्तत्र बहिर्भावो लिङ्गादेवावसीयते ॥ १६४५ ॥
सद्मना यो ह्यसंसृष्टो नियतं बहिरस्त्यसौ ।
गेहाङ्गणस्थितो दृष्टः पुमान् द्वारि स्थितैरिव ॥ १६४६ ॥
विपक्षोऽपि भवत्यत्र सदनान्तर्गतो नरः ।
अर्थापत्तिरियं तस्मादनुमानान्न भिद्यते ॥ १६४७ ॥

tadā'pi gehāyuktatvaṃ dṛṣṭyā'dṛṣṭerviniścitam |
atastatra bahirbhāvo liṅgādevāvasīyate || 1645 ||
sadmanā yo hyasaṃsṛṣṭo niyataṃ bahirastyasau |
gehāṅgaṇasthito dṛṣṭaḥ pumān dvāri sthitairiva || 1646 ||
vipakṣo'pi bhavatyatra sadanāntargato naraḥ |
arthāpattiriyaṃ tasmādanumānānna bhidyate || 1647 ||

Even then, the absence in the house is cognised from the fact. Of his not being seen through the eyes;—which shows that the said absence in the house is cognised through an inferential indicative.—One who is not in the house is always outside of it,—as is found in the case of the man standing in the courtyard seen by men at the gate; the man inside the house provides the term where the probandum is known to be absent.—From all this it follows that this presumption does not differ from inference.—(1645-1647)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

This shows that Presumption is included under Inference.

For instance, Caitra is the Subject, the Minor Term;—Ms being outside is the Probandum;—‘Being alive and yet not being in the house’ is the Probans, of the nature of an ‘effect’;—‘the man standing in the courtyard’ is the Corroborative Instance per similarity;—‘the man in the house’ is the Corroborative Instance per dissimilarity.—

‘Sadana’ is House.

The Invariable Concomitance (the Major Premiss) is indicated by the two Instances.

The Probans cannot be said to be ‘inadmissible Because absence in the House has been cognised by ‘the non-perception of what should have been perceived, if there’; as for the man being alive, this is said to be ascertained in accordance with the doctrines of the other party. In reality, the Probans is doubtful, as there is no Means for obtaining a certain cognition of his being alive.

“But it has been said that there are such means as the Word, etc.”

In that case, if Ms being alive has been duly ascertained by means of Word, etc., then that is enough to prove Ms existence outside;—what then is there left to be done by Presumption?

Thus, it is on the basis of the doctrines of the Opponent that we regard the Probans put forward by us as ‘admissible’, and through the Probans it has been proved that Presumption is included under Inference.—(1645-1647)

End of Presumption.