0058 Verse 63-65

Original

अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां यत्कार्यं यस्य निश्चितम् ।
निश्चयस्तस्य तद्दृष्टाविति न्यायो व्यवस्थितः ॥ ६३ ॥
सन्निवेशविशेषस्तु नैवामीषु तथाविधः ।
तनु तर्वादिभेदेषु शब्द एव तु केवलः ॥ ६४ ॥
तादृशः प्रोच्यमानस्तु सन्दिग्धव्यतिरेकताम् ।
आसादयति वल्मीके कुम्भकारकृतादिषु ॥ ६५ ॥

anvayavyatirekābhyāṃ yatkāryaṃ yasya niścitam |
niścayastasya taddṛṣṭāviti nyāyo vyavasthitaḥ || 63 ||
sanniveśaviśeṣastu naivāmīṣu tathāvidhaḥ |
tanu tarvādibhedeṣu śabda eva tu kevalaḥ || 64 ||
tādṛśaḥ procyamānastu sandigdhavyatirekatām |
āsādayati valmīke kumbhakārakṛtādiṣu || 65 ||

When a certain thing is definitely recognised, through affirmative and negative concomitance, as the effect of a certain cause, then, the perception of that effect must prove that cause;—such is the standing law.—the ‘peculiar arrangement of parts’ in such diverse things as the body, the mountain and the like however is not an effect of this kind; there is a mere assertion to that effect.—such a reason, when put forward, renders the conclusion open to doubt and denial, as it does when put forward for proving that ‘the anthill is the work of the potter—(63-65)

Kamalaśīla

The Effect,—e.g. smoke;—of a certain came,—e.g. Fire;—definitely recognised,—in regard to Fire, etc.;—the perception of that effect—when the effect in the shape of Smoke is seen.

“If that is so, then the same may be the case with the matter under dispute also.”

The answer is—The peculiar arrangement however, etc.

“If the peculiar arrangement is proved by the general assertion, then, it can very well be put forward as the Reason.”

Answer—Such a reason, etc.—Such—i.e. based on mere assertion.—Work of the Potter, etc.;—the reason being ‘the fact of its being a product of Clay’,

Thus then, the conclusion arrived at is that the ‘peculiar arrangement’ in question is ‘unproven’, and as for mere ‘arrangement’, that is ‘inconclusive—(63-65)