1012 Verse 1435

Original

न साधनाभिधानेस्ति सपक्षादिविकल्पना ।
शास्त्रे तु प्रविभज्यन्ते व्यवहाराय ते तथा ॥ १४३५ ॥

na sādhanābhidhānesti sapakṣādivikalpanā |
śāstre tu pravibhajyante vyavahārāya te tathā || 1435 ||

In the mere statement of the proof (inferential), there is no distinction made regarding the ‘sapakṣa’ and the rest. It is only in a scientific treatise, that they are distinguished and divided for the purpose of (explaining) the usage.—(1435)

Kamalaśīla

That is to say, even a barbarian who knows nothing of the distinction of ‘Sapakṣa’ etc., when it is stated to him that ‘where there is smoke, there is

Fire,—and there is smoke at this place’,—he grasps the positive and negative concomitance between Smoke and Fire, and hence comes to recognise that ‘Fire is there’,—without knowing anything about the ‘Sapakṣa’ and other details.—Hence it follows that at the time of the actual proving, there need he no distinction as regards the ‘Sapakṣa’ and the rest.

Question:—“Where then is this distinction made?”

Answer—In a Scientific Treatise.—(1435)

Or, even at the time of the statement of the proof, if the said distinction were made,—there would be nothing in it that would be incompatible with our view. This is what is explained in the following—[see verse 1436 next]