0061 Verse 68

Original

धूमात्मा धवलो दृष्टः पावकाव्यभिचारवान् ।
सिताभिधेयतामात्रान्न हिमादपि तद्गतिः ॥ ६८ ॥

dhūmātmā dhavalo dṛṣṭaḥ pāvakāvyabhicāravān |
sitābhidheyatāmātrānna himādapi tadgatiḥ || 68 ||

As a matter of fact, the smoke that has been seen to be invariably concomitant with fire is white; and yet the mention of mere ‘whiteness’ could not prove the existence of fire; if it did, then that existence could be inferred even from the ‘snow’.—(68)

Kamalaśīla

The following text proceeds to show that the Naiyāyika’s reasoning would be open to the fallacy of ‘Indecision’ (Inconclusiveness), even if he gave up the idea of ‘concomitance’ being of a particular kind (i.e, invariable) and. intended it to be in the general form (of mere concomitance in general).—[see verse 68 above]

“How is it then that the Futile Rejoinder is cited?”

The answer is given in the following Text.—[see verse 69 next]