आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

द्वितीयवाक्यनिर्भासा विवक्षा वाऽनुमीयते ।
एतेनान्वयवाक्याच्च व्यतिरेकगतिर्मता ॥ १६३१ ॥

dvitīyavākyanirbhāsā vivakṣā vā’numīyate |
etenānvayavākyācca vyatirekagatirmatā || 1631 ||

Or, it may be that what is inferred is the speaker’s ‘desire to speak’ relating to the second statement; by this there is cognition of negation following from the affirmative assertion.—(1631)

Kamalaśīla

“By tills”—i.e. by the Inference of the character of the cause,—not directly; because it is from the affirmative sentence that the said ‘desire to speak’ is apprehended,—in which ‘desire’, the negative sentence also figures. Otherwise, if the eating at night did not figure in the said ‘desire to speak’, and mere denial of eating were meant, then the statement would have been in the form ‘Devadatta does not eat’ and the terms ‘fat’ and ‘during the day’ would not be there.

Vyatirekagatiḥ’—the cognition of the contrary sentence.—(1631)