0985 Verse 1389

Original

निदर्शनेऽपि तत्सिद्धौ न स्याद्धर्मिणि साध्यधीः ।
न हि सर्वोपसंहारात्तस्य व्याप्तिर्विनिश्चिता ॥ १३८९ ॥

nidarśane’pi tatsiddhau na syāddharmiṇi sādhyadhīḥ |
na hi sarvopasaṃhārāttasya vyāptirviniścitā || 1389 ||

Even if the probans were known as existent in the corroborative instance, that would not bring about the cognition of the probandum in the minor term. because its invariable concomitance will not have been definitely cognised all over.—(1389)

Kamalaśīla

The following Text—takes note of the third alternative set forth above (under Text 1380);—[see verse 1389 above]

‘In the Corroborative Instance’,—i.e. in the object that serves as the Corroborative Instance,—which object is different from that in which the Probandum is sought to be proved.

‘If it were known’,—i.e. if the Probans were known.

What is meant is as follows If the inseparability (concomitance) of the Probans is held to be in the object which forms the Corroborative Instance,—and which is something different from the Minor Term, in which the Probandum is sought to be proved,—and not ‘all over’—everywhere—along with the Minor Term,—then how could such a Probans bring about the cognition of the Probandum in the Minor Term?

Why it could not bring it about is explained—‘Became its invariable concomitance, etc. etc.’.—(1389)