1010 Verse 1431-1433

Original

असम्बन्धान्न साक्षाद्धि सा युक्तार्थोपपादिका ।
असक्तसूचनान्नापि पारम्पर्येण युज्यते ॥ १४३१ ॥
साध्यसाधनधर्मस्य विषयस्योपदर्शनात् ।
दृष्टान्तपदवत्त्वेष साधनाङ्गं यदीष्यते ॥ १४३२ ॥
अभ्यनुज्ञादिवाक्येन नन्वत्र व्यभिचारिता ।
निष्फलं च तदा यत्र विषयस्योपदर्शनम् ॥ १४३३ ॥

asambandhānna sākṣāddhi sā yuktārthopapādikā |
asaktasūcanānnāpi pāramparyeṇa yujyate || 1431 ||
sādhyasādhanadharmasya viṣayasyopadarśanāt |
dṛṣṭāntapadavattveṣa sādhanāṅgaṃ yadīṣyate || 1432 ||
abhyanujñādivākyena nanvatra vyabhicāritā |
niṣphalaṃ ca tadā yatra viṣayasyopadarśanam || 1433 ||

For, want of relationship, the proposition cannot be rightly regarded as proving the thing directly; nor can it be rightly regarded as doing it indirectly, because it does not indicate what is possible.—If it be regarded as part of the proving, on account of its presenting the objective of the probans and the probandum,—like the statement of the corroborative instance,—then it would be like words conveying an order, and in view of this the reason given would be fallible. and as merely the objective will be indicated, the said statement of the proposition would be useless also.—(1431-1433)

Kamalaśīla

Question:—“How is the Proposition not an integral part of the Proving?”

Answer;—[see verses 1431-1433 above]

‘It does not indicate what is probable’,—because it only states what is meant to be proved.

What is meant is as follows:—As words have no connection with things the statement of the Proposition cannot serve any directly useful purpose;—nor indirectly, like the statement of the Probans, because it does not indicate what is possible;—as declared in the following passage—‘They made the assertion of the Minor Term, for the purpose of intimating their intention,—which shows where the doubt lay; hence it does not serve any directly useful purpose in the actual proving; and as it states only what is meant to he proved, it cannot help indirectly either’.

Some people hold the following opinion—“The Proposition has to be stated,—in the same way as the Corroborative Instance is stated,—because, even though it does not form a part of the Inference, yet it presents the objective of the Probans and the Probandum; as declared in the words—‘Since the two forms that remain are shown in the Corroborative Instance’; that is, the statement of the Corroborative Instance, even though it does not form a separate factor of the Inference, is yet stated for the purpose of showing the two features of the Probans—other than the feature of subsisting in the Minor Term”.

The answer to these people is provided in the words ‘Like the Corroborative Instance, etc. etc.’.—‘Words conveying an order’,—such as ‘Do this,—Prove the Sound to be non-eternal’,—The term ‘ādi’ includes words conveying a request and so forth. [Under the opinion put forward] it would be necessary to put forth such expressions also; on the ground that in the absence of these also, it is not possible to propound an Inference all on a sudden.

‘Useless’;—because the Probandum would become cognised even without it. For instance, if the inference is stated simply as ‘whatever is produced is non-eternal,—and Sound is produced’, the cognition comes about that ‘Sound is non-eternal’, even without the statement of the Proposition.—(1431-1433)