MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode3_Part9_CartoonFilm.mp4

Not an editorially verified transcript. This text was generated automatically from the preserved recording and may contain recognition, language-detection, spelling, segmentation or name errors. Consult the source recording for authoritative content.

Collection: Part 11 · VIDEHA MITHILA MAITHILI DISCUSSION CRITICISM SERIES PART 11
Status: asr-draft
Human verified: No
Editorial review: not-reviewed
ASR model: small
Detected language: en (0.997096)
Duration: 25:05
Source: Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

0:02–0:07refutation of the view that cognition of the individual is the denotatum of a word.
0:07–0:13the suffix mad-up is accepted to convey possession of a universal by an individual,
0:13–0:18but this does not establish cognition of the individual as the sole denotatum of a word.
0:18–0:25in the meanings of validity and no ability, quality and quality can who differ, because of this distinction,
0:25–0:29the view that only the individual is cognized is unacceptable.
0:29–0:33doubt is a component of inference.
0:33–0:389. The objection raised against purely affirmative inference is untenable.
0:38–0:44The only auxiliary cause of inference is the doubt that obstructs establishment of the pro-bandim in the subject.
0:44–0:53This arrangement of cause and effect rests upon economy, treating cognitions of the same object concerning the same thing as separate auxiliary causes introduces needless complexity.
0:53–0:59A doubt such as, is the jar knowable or not, becomes a necessary component for removing
0:59–1:05the doubt that obstructs the operation of the inference, the jar is knowable.
1:05–1:09Therefore knowability can be purely affirmative.
1:09–1:13Eligibility for doubt is a component.
1:13–1:18Alternatively, it may be said that not actual doubt but eligibility for doubt is an auxiliary
1:18–1:24cause of inference, because actual doubt may have ceased at the time of inference.
1:24–1:29But if eligibility for doubt is regarded merely as the absence of establishing and sublating
1:29–1:32evidence, defects arise.
1:32–1:36According to the established conclusion, cognition concerning uncertainty whether the counter
1:36–1:42positive of an instantiated absolute absence is present in the subject constitutes eligibility
1:42–1:43for doubt.
1:43–1:48Nevertheless, according to scholars who regard noability as merely the counter positive
1:48–1:53of an absolute absence, the doubt is the jar knowable or not, itself is accepted as
1:53–1:56an auxiliary cause.
1:56–1:59Assertainment of perversion on one side is sufficient.
1:59–2:05Objection, in purely affirmative inference there is no characteristic concerning absence
2:05–2:07of a counter instance.
2:07–2:09How, then, is the reason probative?
2:09–2:16Reply, for probativity, ascertainment of either affirmative or negative perversion
2:16–2:18is sufficient.
2:18–2:22In an affirmative negative inference both perversions may happen to be present, but
2:22–2:25but both are not indispensable to causality.
2:25–2:30Cognition of the absence of the reason in the counter instance assists negative perversion,
2:30–2:36in purely affirmative inference there is no counter instance, so it is unnecessary.
2:36–2:41With this, the established conclusion concerning purely affirmative inference comes to an
2:41–2:43end.
2:43–2:47Purely negative inference.
2:47–2:51Definition of purely negative inference.
2:51–2:55An inference having no similar instance and arising from cognition of negative provision
2:55–2:58is purely negative.
2:58–3:04Example, Earth differs from the other eight substances because it possesses odor.
3:04–3:08Here there is no odor in substances other than Earth, therefore the probandom has no
3:08–3:10affirmative example.
3:10–3:15The inference arises through the negative provision wherever there is absence of difference
3:15–3:19from the other eight substances, there is absence of odor.
3:19–3:223. Objection There is no negative inference.
3:22–3:2613. Objection Positive cognition of perversion and cognition
3:26–3:30of subject propertyhood alone cause inference. Cognition of negative perversion produces
3:30–3:35only cognition of negative concomitance. Therefore purely negative inference is not an independent
3:35–3:39inference. The prima facie opponent says that in affirmative
3:39–3:44inference, affirmative perversion and subject propertyhood are causes, in negative inference,
3:44–3:49only negative pervasion and negative concomitance. Therefore cognition in the form of inference
3:49–3:51does not arise.
3:51–4:00Refutation of the objection. 14. It is unnecessary to posit one and the same kind of cognition
4:00–4:06is the common cause of affirmative and negative inference. Both, the pervaded reason occurs
4:06–4:10in the subject and the absence of the reason pervades the absence of the probandom may
4:10–4:14cause their respective inferences.
4:14–4:18It cannot be said that this breaks causal commonality and that unity is required just
4:18–4:22as one sense-word and causes all four kinds of cognition.
4:22–4:28In inference, distinct causal complexes produced their respective effects.
4:28–4:33The absence of the causes of positive inference and purely negative inference is not a defect.
4:33–4:37Likewise, the absence of a negative cause and purely affirmative inference is not
4:37–4:40a defect.
4:40–4:47provision from affirmative provision. Proposal in negative inference affirmative
4:47–4:51provision is first inferred, thereafter negative provision is cognized on its basis.
4:54–4:59But this view is untenable. If affirmative provision is already established, the negative
4:59–5:04example becomes pointless, and if negative provision is established only after affirmative
5:04–5:11provision, infinite regress arises. Therefore negative provision must be apprehended independently.
5:11–5:15Affirmative Provision from Negative Concomitance
5:15–5:23Reply, Affirmative Provision may be apprehended from negative concomitance free from an extraneous
5:23–5:25condition.
5:25–5:30On the basis of the rule wherever the probandom is absent, the reason is absent, it is established
5:30–5:36that wherever the reason is present, the probandom is present.
5:36–5:40The negative concomitance between possession of odor and absence of non-difference from
5:40–5:44what is other than earth establishes in earth the relation that earth differs from the other
5:44–5:47eight substances.
5:47–5:51Earthhood alone is the reason.
5:51–5:55Objection, if affirmative provision is the cause, earthhood itself, not possession of
5:55–6:00odor, will be the reason, because possession of odor in earth is delimited by earthhood.
6:00–6:06Reply, the probandom is difference from the other eight substances, and the reason
6:06–6:08is earthhood.
6:08–6:13Possession of odor does not delimit subjecthood, it is merely a special property of the
6:13–6:18substance earth. Thus Udayana Karya too does not regard the delimiter of
6:18–6:27subjecthood as the reason. Alternative view. 18. Alternatively, it may be said that in
6:27–6:31purely negative inference, cognition of negative pervasion itself establishes the
6:31–6:34causal relation between the absence of the probandom and the absence of the
6:34–6:38reason, therefore negative subsumptive reflection is the cause of inference.
6:38–6:43On this view, subsumptive reflection alone is accepted as the common cause of
6:43–6:46both affirmative and negative inference.
6:46–6:49It is no defect that the special causal complexes
6:49–6:51of special inferences differ.
6:52–6:55Objection, the probandom is unestablished.
6:56–6:5819, objection, in the inference,
6:58–7:00earth differs from the other eight substances,
7:00–7:02the difference serving as the probandom
7:02–7:03is not previously established,
7:03–7:07therefore purely negative inference cannot be described.
7:07–7:09Subject hood, subject property hood,
7:09–7:12and cognition qualified by the probandom are all impossible.
7:12–7:16But this objection assumes that the probandom is entirely unknown.
7:16–7:22In practice, cognition of the general form of the probandom and uncertainty about it in the subject are sufficient.
7:23–7:25Examination.
7:26–7:3120. Suppose the probandom is established by the stated negative inference.
7:31–7:36If it has already been established through affirmative cognition, the reason would become purely affirmative,
7:36–7:40purely affirmative, and if the reason is not previously known, the defect of the reasons
7:40–7:43uncommonness would arise.
7:43–7:48Nevertheless, difference from the other eight substances is neither the nature of earth
7:48–7:52or water nor merely the counter-positive absence of them.
7:52–7:59Since earth and water are previously known, the probandom is not entirely unfamiliar.
7:59–8:03Dissimilarity is not unfamiliar.
8:03–8:07from the properties of the other substances, whose nature is being the counter positive
8:07–8:12of an absolute absence occurring in water and the like, is not unfamiliar.
8:12–8:18It is cognized on the basis of earthhood and similar properties.
8:18–8:22When the absence of earthhood in water is apprehended, the counter-positiveness of
8:22–8:26earthhood is also apprehended, therefore the cognition that earth differs from the
8:26–8:31other substances is not wholly unestablished.
8:31–8:34Mutual absence is not the probandom.
8:34–8:3522.
8:35–8:40Some scholars say that the mutual absence of water and the other substances is itself
8:40–8:41the probandom.
8:41–8:46But mutual absence of water and the like in general is itself unfamiliar.
8:46–8:53If a collection of individual absences is made the probandom, the reason becomes uncommon.
8:53–8:57Therefore not mutual absence, but a combined difference such as being distinct from light
8:57–9:01and from the 12 entities beginning with water is to be adopted as the probandom.
9:03–9:08Difference from the 12th beginning with water together with difference from light is the probandom.
9:10–9:1623. When doubt apprehends that earth is distinct from light, a subsequent doubt arises, is earth,
9:16–9:20which is distinct from light, also distinct from the 12 entities beginning with water?
9:21–9:25The combined difference apprehended in that doubt can become the probandom.
9:25–9:31them. Alternatively, the collection of the 13 mutual absences of water and the other entities,
9:31–9:36which is the object of 13 doubts, determines the pervasion concerning the probandom in negative
9:36–9:38inference.
9:38–9:42Doubt about the negative concomitance of the probandom is definite.
9:42–9:4824. It cannot be said that negative inference is pointless because the probandom is established
9:48–9:53in earth only as a matter of doubt. If the probandom is certain in earth, its absence
9:53–9:58in the counter instances such as water is also certain, and if it is doubtful in earth,
9:58–10:03doubt concerning its absence remains in the counter instances.
10:03–10:08Therefore the view that the probandom is established in earth only doubtfully merely confuses the
10:08–10:11pupil.
10:11–10:15Prima-Facey conclusion.
10:15–10:19This refutation also rejects the view that the controversial statement itself establishes
10:19–10:23the probandom and therefore negative inference is useless.
10:23–10:28What about the authority of the controversial statement does not yield ascertainment of
10:28–10:31the probandom?
10:31–10:35Negative inference is required to ascertain the probandom, doubt generated by the controversial
10:35–10:37statement cannot take its place.
10:37–10:43With this, the prima facie account of purely negative inference comes to an end.
10:43–10:49Established Conclusion Concerning Purely Negative Inference
10:49–10:53Established conclusion, the difference of earth from other substances can be directly
10:53–10:58perceived in earthen objects such as jars, on this basis, the general form of the probandom,
10:58–11:00difference concerning earth, is established.
11:03–11:04Objection of the earlier scholars.
11:05–11:1027. The earlier scholars object that mutual absence or difference from other substances
11:10–11:14is not perceptible, because its counter positive may include imperceptible atoms and the like.
11:15–11:19Cognition of absence arises from non-apprehension of an eligible counter positive,
11:19–11:21mere non-apprehension does not produce cognition of absence.
11:21–11:33The proponent of the established conclusion replies that, in a locus where the existence of an eligible counter positive is proved impossible, its non-apprehension produces cognition of absence.
11:33–11:39The absence of earthhood in an atom of water and the absence of color in air are known in this way.
11:39–11:45Eligible non-apprehension accompanied by hypothetical reasoning causes cognition of absence.
11:45–11:50absence. Negative inference does not arise from affirmative
11:50–11:57provision. Objection, the difference of earth from water and other substances can be established
11:57–12:04by affirmative inference, therefore negative inference is unnecessary. Reply, cognition
12:04–12:08such as earth is not water is not always available through perception or affirmative
12:08–12:14provision. Negative provision, wherever earthhood is absent, absence of difference from
12:14–12:19Earth is absent, is required to establish the probandom.
12:19–12:26Positive cognition alone does not establish complete exclusion of the counter instance.
12:26–12:30Re-establishment of an already established probandom.
12:30–12:3129.
12:31–12:35It cannot be said that inference is pointless because Earth's difference from other substances
12:35–12:38is already established.
12:38–12:42Even when the general form of the probandom is previously known, inference may produce
12:42–12:45subject-specific ascertainment.
12:45–12:51In the inference speech as non-eternal, non-eternality is generally known, but its ascertainment in
12:51–12:54speech arises through inference.
12:54–12:58A jar can be the subject.
12:58–13:03Objection, how can an earthen jar be the subject, since the doubt is all earth distinct from
13:03–13:09other substances or not, concerns earthen general, not a particular jar.
13:09–13:14Reply, doubt and a desire to establish the probandom difference delimited by earthhood
13:14–13:16are possible in a jar.
13:16–13:21The subject may be either universal or particular.
13:21–13:28Just as fire on a mountain is considered generally, yet a particular mountain becomes the subject.
13:28–13:33Assertainment in something possessing the same property opposes doubt.
13:33–13:38Alternative, all earth is not the subject, because in some portion of earth, difference
13:38–13:43from other substances has been directly established, therefore ascertainment in something possessing
13:43–13:48the same property opposes general doubt.
13:48–13:52conclusion, where the probandom is certain in one portion and doubtful in another, only
13:52–13:55the doubtful portion is the subject.
13:55–14:00Not all earth delimited by earthhood, but the portion of earth subject to doubt becomes
14:00–14:02the subject.
14:02–14:06Difference from others is established.
14:06–14:11Objection, earth differs from other substances, can be established through affirmative cognition,
14:11–14:15therefore a negative example is unnecessary.
14:15–14:25Reply, when the reason property earthhood delimits subjecthood, its relation to the probandom difference from others is not clarified by affirmative provision alone.
14:25–14:31Negative Provision excludes the counter instance possessing the absence of the probandom.
14:31–14:38Nevertheless, where affirmative provision is fully available, the negative example may be merely a reminder.
14:38–14:41Alternative Position
14:41–14:4833. Alternatively, the 13 mutual absences of the 13 substances beginning with water may
14:48–14:54be taken as probanda in earth. The counter positives of these absences, the substances
14:54–14:58beginning with water, are familiar in other loci, therefore neither the defect of being
14:58–15:02purely affirmative nor the reasons uncommonness arises.
15:02–15:08Or, after first establishing the 13 absences in water and the like, difference from the
15:08–15:14the 13 substances may subsequently be established in earth through negative inference.
15:14–15:21Difference from what is different from earth is not the probandom. Proposal, the mutual
15:21–15:25absence in earth of what is distinct both from water and the rest in from earth should
15:25–15:34be the probandom. Reply, establishing such a combined absence is unnecessary and over-inclusive.
15:34–15:39It is sufficient to establish in earth the absence of the 13 substances alone.
15:39–15:44Or is the problem removed by treating absence as the very nature of its locus, according
15:44–15:48to the established conclusion, perceptual or affirmative negative cognition concerning
15:48–15:51differences available?
15:51–15:58The absolute absence of properties distinct from earthhood is the probandom.
15:58–16:02Some scholars say that the absolute absence in earth of properties such as waterhood,
16:02–16:06which are distinct from earthhood, is the probandom.
16:06–16:10This absence is established through cognition of the difference of the properties occurring
16:10–16:17and water and the like, therefore the probandom is not unfamiliar. A collection of multiple
16:17–16:21absolute absences is not unestablished, each absence may be known in a separate locus.
16:23–16:27Cognition of the collection is the result of inference, but collection itself need not be
16:27–16:37previously established. Alternative explanation of the familiarity of the probandom. Other scholars
16:37–16:41say that the absence of something who's counter positive is familiar is also readily knowable.
16:42–16:47Therefore the probandom difference from the other 13 substances is not unfamiliar.
16:47–16:57Rejoiner, water is not distinct from heaviness and the like, therefore water and the other counter instances will sublate the probandom.
16:57–17:05Reply, only denial of difference from the other substances sublates it, identity with one property does not deny every other difference.
17:05–17:12The differences among 14 substances can coexist without contradiction in one locus.
17:12–17:16Negative inference is not established by affirmative inference.
17:16–17:25Objection, once the probandom has been established generally, its establishment in earth can arise through affirmative inference.
17:25–17:35Reply, if being the locus of the probandom and the subject is made the reason, the same property would also have to be established in counter instances such as water.
17:35–17:42Cognition of negative perversion is the cause of negative inference, affirmative perversion cannot take its place.
17:42–17:49The counter-inference earth is water because it possesses earthhood is fruitless because of negative deviation.
17:49–17:56As soon as non-waterhood is directly ascertained in an earthen jar, the counter-inference is sublated.
17:56–18:06Familiarity of the probandom is indispensable. Objection, in an inference concerning the self,
18:06–18:13the probandom is not previously perceived, as in a living body possesses a self because of respiration or desire.
18:13–18:18How, then, is the probandom of negative inference familiar?
18:18–18:25Reply, prior establishment of the general notion of the probandom is sufficient, subject-specific
18:25–18:30establishment is the result of inference. Although the non-selfhood of a jar is not
18:30–18:34perceived, general cognition of the absence of selfhood and cognition of the meaning of
18:34–18:38selfhood are available, therefore negative perversion can be described.
18:38–18:44Refutation of the objection that desire is not produced by an inherent cause.
18:44–18:52inherent cause. Objection, desire is an effect, therefore its inherent cause is the self.
18:53–18:58Through this general rule the self is established as distinct from the other eight substances,
18:58–19:05and the presence of a self is inferred in a living body. Reply, if mere conjunction with
19:05–19:10the self is taken as the reason for selfhood, overextension follows because jars and the
19:10–19:15like are also conjoined with the self. The delimiting character of the special relation
19:15–19:20through which respiration, desire, and the like indicate the presence of a self must be clarified.
19:22–19:26Some scholars say that being in effect produced by body's self-conjunction is the reason for the
19:26–19:31presence of a self. Mind a self-conjunction causes cognition, but the self is not an
19:31–19:37effect of cognition. Examining this view, the proponent of the established conclusion
19:37–19:40clarifies subtle distinctions of causal relation in the next section.
19:40–19:47Abstance of delimitation by conjunction with the self and desire is unacceptable.
19:47–19:5340. It may again be objected that conjunction with the self is the non-inherent cause of desire,
19:53–19:57absence of the delimiting character of this conjunction is found in inert objects such as
19:57–20:01jars, and on the basis of that absence the presence of a self in a living body can be inferred.
20:03–20:09But this argument too is unacceptable. If the delimiting character of conjunction with the
20:09–20:17As the non-inherent cause of desire is assumed already established in the living body, the defect of establishing what is already established arises.
20:17–20:25And if it is not established, negative inference cannot clarify either the absence of the probandum or the unfamiliar probandum.
20:25–20:31If an arbitrary rule is accepted that an unknown object may be inferred from an uncommon property,
20:31–20:38the unacceptable consequence follows that any unfamiliar probandum desired it will may be established from jahud or any other property.
20:38–20:44Being delimited by conjunction with the self as selfhood, reply of the proponent of the
20:44–20:47established conclusion.
20:47–20:4841.
20:48–20:52The proponent of the established conclusion says that once conjunction with the self has
20:52–20:57been established as the non-inherent cause of desire, the inference takes the following
20:57–20:58form.
20:58–21:01Desire possesses desirehood because its non-inherent cause is conjunction with
21:01–21:04the self.
21:04–21:08Desirehood is a universal property directly pervaded by being a special quality apprehensible
21:08–21:12by an external sense, like soundhood.
21:12–21:17The special relation of the body to conjunction with the self as a non-inherent cause is
21:17–21:21regarded as delimited by the presence of the self.
21:21–21:26If mere conjunction with the self were regarded as the productive cause of desire, overextension
21:26–21:30would follow because jars and the like are conjoined with the self, therefore only
21:30–21:34conjunction with the self delimited by the presence of the self is regarded as the non-inherent
21:34–21:37cause of desire.
21:37–21:39Alternative Doctrine of Selfhood
21:41–21:4942, alternatively, it may be said that being the substratum of desire residing in the self is delimited by pervasive conjunction with the self.
21:49–21:56It is being the substratum of a produced or pervasive special quality, just as being the substratum of sound is delimited by conjunction with air.
21:58–22:04On this basis, substancehood can join with the self and the substratum of desire becomes indicative of the self's presence.
22:04–22:11In a living body, respiration, desire, movement, growth and decline of limbs, and the like are
22:11–22:16apprehended as properties pervaded by the presence of the self. In inert jars and the like,
22:16–22:22the absence of respiration or desire establishes the absence of the self through negative concomitance.
22:23–22:28Without negative inference the body cannot be established as possessing a self.
22:30–22:35Objection, the presence of a self in a living body can be established by affirmative inference,
22:35–22:39A living body possesses a self because of the absence of an obstruction to life,
22:39–22:46therefore negative inference is unnecessary. Reply, qualified cognition that a living body
22:46–22:52possesses a self is impossible without negative inference. One means of knowledge, affirmative
22:52–22:59inference, does not render another, negative inference, useless. Alternatively, conjunction
22:59–23:04with the self is the non-inherent cause of movement, because movement is not produced by
23:04–23:08an impression, the presence in that conjunction of conjunction with a self-possessing effort
23:08–23:13may be established through both affirmative and negative concomitance. The living body
23:13–23:18or its limbs are substrata of that conjunction, and inert jar is not such a substratum.
23:20–23:24Desire resides in a substance different from the eight substances, negative inference.
23:26–23:2944. Objection. How is the following inference negative?
23:29–23:33Desire resides in a substance distinct from the eight substances, namely the self,
23:33–23:37because desire is a quality and does not reside in the eight substances.
23:37–23:42Ignorance or absence of a substratum distinct from the eight substances creates uncertainty.
23:43–23:48Reply, the controversial statement or perception of a common property produces the doubt,
23:48–23:52is the substratum of desire distinct from the eight substances or not?
23:53–23:57Following this doubt, the difference of the substance bearing desire from the other eight
23:57–24:03substances is ascertained through negative inference. Alternatively, the substratum
24:03–24:08of desire may first be regarded as a substance distinct from the eight substances, thereafter
24:08–24:15successive doubt and ascertainment concerning the nature of that substance arise.
24:15–24:22Recutation of the objection that doubt does not determine negative inference.
24:22–24:27Objection doubt itself establishes the probandom, therefore negative inference becomes pointless.
24:27–24:33Reply, doubt does not ascertain the presence of the probandom in the subject, it merely
24:33–24:36produces alternatives.
24:36–24:43of the probandom and ascertainment of the perversion of its absence arise through inference.
24:43–24:48Mere non-apprehension of an eligible probandom does not yield ascertainment of its absence,
24:48–24:52negative perversion is impossible without ascertainment of the absence of the reason
24:52–24:57pervading the absence of the probandom. Therefore negative inference is necessary
24:57–24:59after doubt.
24:59–25:02Subjection, doubt about the probandom is helpful.

Plain text

refutation of the view that cognition of the individual is the denotatum of a word. the suffix mad-up is accepted to convey possession of a universal by an individual, but this does not establish cognition of the individual as the sole denotatum of a word. in the meanings of validity and no ability, quality and quality can who differ, because of this distinction, the view that only the individual is cognized is unacceptable. doubt is a component of inference. 9. The objection raised against purely affirmative inference is untenable. The only auxiliary cause of inference is the doubt that obstructs establishment of the pro-bandim in the subject. This arrangement of cause and effect rests upon economy, treating cognitions of the same object concerning the same thing as separate auxiliary causes introduces needless complexity. A doubt such as, is the jar knowable or not, becomes a necessary component for removing the doubt that obstructs the operation of the inference, the jar is knowable. Therefore knowability can be purely affirmative. Eligibility for doubt is a component. Alternatively, it may be said that not actual doubt but eligibility for doubt is an auxiliary cause of inference, because actual doubt may have ceased at the time of inference. But if eligibility for doubt is regarded merely as the absence of establishing and sublating evidence, defects arise. According to the established conclusion, cognition concerning uncertainty whether the counter positive of an instantiated absolute absence is present in the subject constitutes eligibility for doubt. Nevertheless, according to scholars who regard noability as merely the counter positive of an absolute absence, the doubt is the jar knowable or not, itself is accepted as an auxiliary cause. Assertainment of perversion on one side is sufficient. Objection, in purely affirmative inference there is no characteristic concerning absence of a counter instance. How, then, is the reason probative? Reply, for probativity, ascertainment of either affirmative or negative perversion is sufficient. In an affirmative negative inference both perversions may happen to be present, but but both are not indispensable to causality. Cognition of the absence of the reason in the counter instance assists negative perversion, in purely affirmative inference there is no counter instance, so it is unnecessary. With this, the established conclusion concerning purely affirmative inference comes to an end. Purely negative inference. Definition of purely negative inference. An inference having no similar instance and arising from cognition of negative provision is purely negative. Example, Earth differs from the other eight substances because it possesses odor. Here there is no odor in substances other than Earth, therefore the probandom has no affirmative example. The inference arises through the negative provision wherever there is absence of difference from the other eight substances, there is absence of odor. 3. Objection There is no negative inference. 13. Objection Positive cognition of perversion and cognition of subject propertyhood alone cause inference. Cognition of negative perversion produces only cognition of negative concomitance. Therefore purely negative inference is not an independent inference. The prima facie opponent says that in affirmative inference, affirmative perversion and subject propertyhood are causes, in negative inference, only negative pervasion and negative concomitance. Therefore cognition in the form of inference does not arise. Refutation of the objection. 14. It is unnecessary to posit one and the same kind of cognition is the common cause of affirmative and negative inference. Both, the pervaded reason occurs in the subject and the absence of the reason pervades the absence of the probandom may cause their respective inferences. It cannot be said that this breaks causal commonality and that unity is required just as one sense-word and causes all four kinds of cognition. In inference, distinct causal complexes produced their respective effects. The absence of the causes of positive inference and purely negative inference is not a defect. Likewise, the absence of a negative cause and purely affirmative inference is not a defect. provision from affirmative provision. Proposal in negative inference affirmative provision is first inferred, thereafter negative provision is cognized on its basis. But this view is untenable. If affirmative provision is already established, the negative example becomes pointless, and if negative provision is established only after affirmative provision, infinite regress arises. Therefore negative provision must be apprehended independently. Affirmative Provision from Negative Concomitance Reply, Affirmative Provision may be apprehended from negative concomitance free from an extraneous condition. On the basis of the rule wherever the probandom is absent, the reason is absent, it is established that wherever the reason is present, the probandom is present. The negative concomitance between possession of odor and absence of non-difference from what is other than earth establishes in earth the relation that earth differs from the other eight substances. Earthhood alone is the reason. Objection, if affirmative provision is the cause, earthhood itself, not possession of odor, will be the reason, because possession of odor in earth is delimited by earthhood. Reply, the probandom is difference from the other eight substances, and the reason is earthhood. Possession of odor does not delimit subjecthood, it is merely a special property of the substance earth. Thus Udayana Karya too does not regard the delimiter of subjecthood as the reason. Alternative view. 18. Alternatively, it may be said that in purely negative inference, cognition of negative pervasion itself establishes the causal relation between the absence of the probandom and the absence of the reason, therefore negative subsumptive reflection is the cause of inference. On this view, subsumptive reflection alone is accepted as the common cause of both affirmative and negative inference. It is no defect that the special causal complexes of special inferences differ. Objection, the probandom is unestablished. 19, objection, in the inference, earth differs from the other eight substances, the difference serving as the probandom is not previously established, therefore purely negative inference cannot be described. Subject hood, subject property hood, and cognition qualified by the probandom are all impossible. But this objection assumes that the probandom is entirely unknown. In practice, cognition of the general form of the probandom and uncertainty about it in the subject are sufficient. Examination. 20. Suppose the probandom is established by the stated negative inference. If it has already been established through affirmative cognition, the reason would become purely affirmative, purely affirmative, and if the reason is not previously known, the defect of the reasons uncommonness would arise. Nevertheless, difference from the other eight substances is neither the nature of earth or water nor merely the counter-positive absence of them. Since earth and water are previously known, the probandom is not entirely unfamiliar. Dissimilarity is not unfamiliar. from the properties of the other substances, whose nature is being the counter positive of an absolute absence occurring in water and the like, is not unfamiliar. It is cognized on the basis of earthhood and similar properties. When the absence of earthhood in water is apprehended, the counter-positiveness of earthhood is also apprehended, therefore the cognition that earth differs from the other substances is not wholly unestablished. Mutual absence is not the probandom. 22. Some scholars say that the mutual absence of water and the other substances is itself the probandom. But mutual absence of water and the like in general is itself unfamiliar. If a collection of individual absences is made the probandom, the reason becomes uncommon. Therefore not mutual absence, but a combined difference such as being distinct from light and from the 12 entities beginning with water is to be adopted as the probandom. Difference from the 12th beginning with water together with difference from light is the probandom. 23. When doubt apprehends that earth is distinct from light, a subsequent doubt arises, is earth, which is distinct from light, also distinct from the 12 entities beginning with water? The combined difference apprehended in that doubt can become the probandom. them. Alternatively, the collection of the 13 mutual absences of water and the other entities, which is the object of 13 doubts, determines the pervasion concerning the probandom in negative inference. Doubt about the negative concomitance of the probandom is definite. 24. It cannot be said that negative inference is pointless because the probandom is established in earth only as a matter of doubt. If the probandom is certain in earth, its absence in the counter instances such as water is also certain, and if it is doubtful in earth, doubt concerning its absence remains in the counter instances. Therefore the view that the probandom is established in earth only doubtfully merely confuses the pupil. Prima-Facey conclusion. This refutation also rejects the view that the controversial statement itself establishes the probandom and therefore negative inference is useless. What about the authority of the controversial statement does not yield ascertainment of the probandom? Negative inference is required to ascertain the probandom, doubt generated by the controversial statement cannot take its place. With this, the prima facie account of purely negative inference comes to an end. Established Conclusion Concerning Purely Negative Inference Established conclusion, the difference of earth from other substances can be directly perceived in earthen objects such as jars, on this basis, the general form of the probandom, difference concerning earth, is established. Objection of the earlier scholars. 27. The earlier scholars object that mutual absence or difference from other substances is not perceptible, because its counter positive may include imperceptible atoms and the like. Cognition of absence arises from non-apprehension of an eligible counter positive, mere non-apprehension does not produce cognition of absence. The proponent of the established conclusion replies that, in a locus where the existence of an eligible counter positive is proved impossible, its non-apprehension produces cognition of absence. The absence of earthhood in an atom of water and the absence of color in air are known in this way. Eligible non-apprehension accompanied by hypothetical reasoning causes cognition of absence. absence. Negative inference does not arise from affirmative provision. Objection, the difference of earth from water and other substances can be established by affirmative inference, therefore negative inference is unnecessary. Reply, cognition such as earth is not water is not always available through perception or affirmative provision. Negative provision, wherever earthhood is absent, absence of difference from Earth is absent, is required to establish the probandom. Positive cognition alone does not establish complete exclusion of the counter instance. Re-establishment of an already established probandom. 29. It cannot be said that inference is pointless because Earth's difference from other substances is already established. Even when the general form of the probandom is previously known, inference may produce subject-specific ascertainment. In the inference speech as non-eternal, non-eternality is generally known, but its ascertainment in speech arises through inference. A jar can be the subject. Objection, how can an earthen jar be the subject, since the doubt is all earth distinct from other substances or not, concerns earthen general, not a particular jar. Reply, doubt and a desire to establish the probandom difference delimited by earthhood are possible in a jar. The subject may be either universal or particular. Just as fire on a mountain is considered generally, yet a particular mountain becomes the subject. Assertainment in something possessing the same property opposes doubt. Alternative, all earth is not the subject, because in some portion of earth, difference from other substances has been directly established, therefore ascertainment in something possessing the same property opposes general doubt. conclusion, where the probandom is certain in one portion and doubtful in another, only the doubtful portion is the subject. Not all earth delimited by earthhood, but the portion of earth subject to doubt becomes the subject. Difference from others is established. Objection, earth differs from other substances, can be established through affirmative cognition, therefore a negative example is unnecessary. Reply, when the reason property earthhood delimits subjecthood, its relation to the probandom difference from others is not clarified by affirmative provision alone. Negative Provision excludes the counter instance possessing the absence of the probandom. Nevertheless, where affirmative provision is fully available, the negative example may be merely a reminder. Alternative Position 33. Alternatively, the 13 mutual absences of the 13 substances beginning with water may be taken as probanda in earth. The counter positives of these absences, the substances beginning with water, are familiar in other loci, therefore neither the defect of being purely affirmative nor the reasons uncommonness arises. Or, after first establishing the 13 absences in water and the like, difference from the the 13 substances may subsequently be established in earth through negative inference. Difference from what is different from earth is not the probandom. Proposal, the mutual absence in earth of what is distinct both from water and the rest in from earth should be the probandom. Reply, establishing such a combined absence is unnecessary and over-inclusive. It is sufficient to establish in earth the absence of the 13 substances alone. Or is the problem removed by treating absence as the very nature of its locus, according to the established conclusion, perceptual or affirmative negative cognition concerning differences available? The absolute absence of properties distinct from earthhood is the probandom. Some scholars say that the absolute absence in earth of properties such as waterhood, which are distinct from earthhood, is the probandom. This absence is established through cognition of the difference of the properties occurring and water and the like, therefore the probandom is not unfamiliar. A collection of multiple absolute absences is not unestablished, each absence may be known in a separate locus. Cognition of the collection is the result of inference, but collection itself need not be previously established. Alternative explanation of the familiarity of the probandom. Other scholars say that the absence of something who's counter positive is familiar is also readily knowable. Therefore the probandom difference from the other 13 substances is not unfamiliar. Rejoiner, water is not distinct from heaviness and the like, therefore water and the other counter instances will sublate the probandom. Reply, only denial of difference from the other substances sublates it, identity with one property does not deny every other difference. The differences among 14 substances can coexist without contradiction in one locus. Negative inference is not established by affirmative inference. Objection, once the probandom has been established generally, its establishment in earth can arise through affirmative inference. Reply, if being the locus of the probandom and the subject is made the reason, the same property would also have to be established in counter instances such as water. Cognition of negative perversion is the cause of negative inference, affirmative perversion cannot take its place. The counter-inference earth is water because it possesses earthhood is fruitless because of negative deviation. As soon as non-waterhood is directly ascertained in an earthen jar, the counter-inference is sublated. Familiarity of the probandom is indispensable. Objection, in an inference concerning the self, the probandom is not previously perceived, as in a living body possesses a self because of respiration or desire. How, then, is the probandom of negative inference familiar? Reply, prior establishment of the general notion of the probandom is sufficient, subject-specific establishment is the result of inference. Although the non-selfhood of a jar is not perceived, general cognition of the absence of selfhood and cognition of the meaning of selfhood are available, therefore negative perversion can be described. Refutation of the objection that desire is not produced by an inherent cause. inherent cause. Objection, desire is an effect, therefore its inherent cause is the self. Through this general rule the self is established as distinct from the other eight substances, and the presence of a self is inferred in a living body. Reply, if mere conjunction with the self is taken as the reason for selfhood, overextension follows because jars and the like are also conjoined with the self. The delimiting character of the special relation through which respiration, desire, and the like indicate the presence of a self must be clarified. Some scholars say that being in effect produced by body's self-conjunction is the reason for the presence of a self. Mind a self-conjunction causes cognition, but the self is not an effect of cognition. Examining this view, the proponent of the established conclusion clarifies subtle distinctions of causal relation in the next section. Abstance of delimitation by conjunction with the self and desire is unacceptable. 40. It may again be objected that conjunction with the self is the non-inherent cause of desire, absence of the delimiting character of this conjunction is found in inert objects such as jars, and on the basis of that absence the presence of a self in a living body can be inferred. But this argument too is unacceptable. If the delimiting character of conjunction with the As the non-inherent cause of desire is assumed already established in the living body, the defect of establishing what is already established arises. And if it is not established, negative inference cannot clarify either the absence of the probandum or the unfamiliar probandum. If an arbitrary rule is accepted that an unknown object may be inferred from an uncommon property, the unacceptable consequence follows that any unfamiliar probandum desired it will may be established from jahud or any other property. Being delimited by conjunction with the self as selfhood, reply of the proponent of the established conclusion. 41. The proponent of the established conclusion says that once conjunction with the self has been established as the non-inherent cause of desire, the inference takes the following form. Desire possesses desirehood because its non-inherent cause is conjunction with the self. Desirehood is a universal property directly pervaded by being a special quality apprehensible by an external sense, like soundhood. The special relation of the body to conjunction with the self as a non-inherent cause is regarded as delimited by the presence of the self. If mere conjunction with the self were regarded as the productive cause of desire, overextension would follow because jars and the like are conjoined with the self, therefore only conjunction with the self delimited by the presence of the self is regarded as the non-inherent cause of desire. Alternative Doctrine of Selfhood 42, alternatively, it may be said that being the substratum of desire residing in the self is delimited by pervasive conjunction with the self. It is being the substratum of a produced or pervasive special quality, just as being the substratum of sound is delimited by conjunction with air. On this basis, substancehood can join with the self and the substratum of desire becomes indicative of the self's presence. In a living body, respiration, desire, movement, growth and decline of limbs, and the like are apprehended as properties pervaded by the presence of the self. In inert jars and the like, the absence of respiration or desire establishes the absence of the self through negative concomitance. Without negative inference the body cannot be established as possessing a self. Objection, the presence of a self in a living body can be established by affirmative inference, A living body possesses a self because of the absence of an obstruction to life, therefore negative inference is unnecessary. Reply, qualified cognition that a living body possesses a self is impossible without negative inference. One means of knowledge, affirmative inference, does not render another, negative inference, useless. Alternatively, conjunction with the self is the non-inherent cause of movement, because movement is not produced by an impression, the presence in that conjunction of conjunction with a self-possessing effort may be established through both affirmative and negative concomitance. The living body or its limbs are substrata of that conjunction, and inert jar is not such a substratum. Desire resides in a substance different from the eight substances, negative inference. 44. Objection. How is the following inference negative? Desire resides in a substance distinct from the eight substances, namely the self, because desire is a quality and does not reside in the eight substances. Ignorance or absence of a substratum distinct from the eight substances creates uncertainty. Reply, the controversial statement or perception of a common property produces the doubt, is the substratum of desire distinct from the eight substances or not? Following this doubt, the difference of the substance bearing desire from the other eight substances is ascertained through negative inference. Alternatively, the substratum of desire may first be regarded as a substance distinct from the eight substances, thereafter successive doubt and ascertainment concerning the nature of that substance arise. Recutation of the objection that doubt does not determine negative inference. Objection doubt itself establishes the probandom, therefore negative inference becomes pointless. Reply, doubt does not ascertain the presence of the probandom in the subject, it merely produces alternatives. of the probandom and ascertainment of the perversion of its absence arise through inference. Mere non-apprehension of an eligible probandom does not yield ascertainment of its absence, negative perversion is impossible without ascertainment of the absence of the reason pervading the absence of the probandom. Therefore negative inference is necessary after doubt. Subjection, doubt about the probandom is helpful.

← Transcript index