MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode3_Part9_RadioPlay.mp3

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 (0.996411)

Duration

24:47

Source

Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

1. 0:02–0:08refutation of the view that cognition of the individual is the denotatum of a word
2. 0:09–0:14the suffix mad-up is accepted to convey possession of a universal by an individual
3. 0:14–0:19but this does not establish cognition of the individual is the sole denotatum of a word
4. 0:19–0:24in the meanings of validity and no ability, qualifierhood and qualifikanhood differ
5. 0:24–0:30because of this distinction the view that only the individual is cognized is unacceptable
6. 0:30–0:34Doubt is a component of inference.
7. 0:34–0:389. The objection raised against purely affirmative inference is untenable.
8. 0:38–0:44The only auxiliary cause of inference is the doubt that obstructs establishment of the probandom in the subject.
9. 0:44–0:54This 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.
10. 0:54–0:59A doubt such as is the jar knowable or not, becomes a necessary component for removing
11. 0:59–1:04the doubt that obstructs the operation of the inference the jar is knowable.
12. 1:04–1:09Therefore no ability can be purely affirmative.
13. 1:09–1:12Eligibility for doubt is a component.
14. 1:12–1:17Alternatively, it may be said that not actual doubt but eligibility for doubt is an auxiliary
15. 1:17–1:23cause of inference, because actual doubt may have ceased at the time of inference.
16. 1:23–1:28But if eligibility for doubt is regarded merely as the absence of establishing and sublating
17. 1:28–1:31evidence, defects arise.
18. 1:31–1:35According to the established conclusion, cognition concerning uncertainty whether the
19. 1:35–1:40counter-positive of an instantiated absolute absence is present in the subject constitutes
20. 1:40–1:42eligibility for doubt.
21. 1:42–1:47Nevertheless, according to scholars who regard noability as merely the counter-positive
22. 1:47–1:52of an absolute absence, the doubt is the jar knowable or not, itself is accepted
23. 1:52–1:55as an auxiliary cause.
24. 1:55–1:59Assertainment of perversion on one side is sufficient.
25. 1:59–2:04Objection, in purely affirmative inference there is no characteristic concerning absence
26. 2:04–2:06of a counter instance.
27. 2:06–2:09How, then, is the reason probative?
28. 2:09–2:14Reply, for probativity, ascertainment of either affirmative or negative perversion
29. 2:14–2:16is sufficient.
30. 2:16–2:20In an affirmative negative inference both pervations may happen to be present,
31. 2:20–2:24but both are not indispensable to causality.
32. 2:24–2:29Cognition of the absence of the reason in the counter instance assists negative perversion.
33. 2:29–2:35In purely affirmative inference there is no counter instance, so it is unnecessary.
34. 2:35–2:39With this, the established conclusion concerning purely affirmative inference comes to an
35. 2:39–2:42end.
36. 2:42–2:45Purely negative inference.
37. 2:45–2:49Definition of purely negative inference.
38. 2:49–2:53An inference having no similar instance and arising from cognition of negative provision
39. 2:53–2:55is purely negative.
40. 2:55–3:02Example, Earth differs from the other eight substances because it possesses odor.
41. 3:02–3:07Here there is no odor in substances other than Earth, therefore the probandom has no affirmative
42. 3:07–3:08example.
43. 3:08–3:12The inference arises through the negative provision wherever there is absence of difference
44. 3:12–3:16from the other eight substances, there is absence of odor.
45. 3:16–3:20Objection, there is no negative inference.
46. 3:20–3:2513. Objection, positive cognition of perversion and cognition of subject-propertyhood alone
47. 3:25–3:31cause inference, cognition of negative perversion produces only cognition of negative concomitance.
48. 3:31–3:35Therefore purely negative inference is not an independent inference.
49. 3:35–3:40The prima facie opponent says that in affirmative inference, affirmative perversion and subject-propertyhood
50. 3:40–3:44are causes, in negative inference, there are only negative perversion and negative
51. 3:44–3:50concomitance. Therefore cognition in the form of inference does not arise.
52. 3:50–3:53Refutation of the objection.
53. 3:53–3:5814. It is unnecessary to posit one and the same kind of cognition is the common cause
54. 3:58–4:04of affirmative and negative inference. Both, the pervaded reason occurs in the subject
55. 4:04–4:08and the absence of the reason pervades the absence of the probandom may cause their
56. 4:08–4:14respective inferences. It cannot be said that this breaks causal commonality and
57. 4:14–4:18that unity is required just as one sense-word and causes all four kinds of
58. 4:18–4:23cognition. In inference, distinct causal complexes produced their respective
59. 4:23–4:28effects. The absence of the causes of positive inference and purely negative
60. 4:28–4:33inference is not a defect. Likewise, the absence of a negative cause in purely
61. 4:33–4:38affirmative inference is not a defect. Negative perversion from affirmative
62. 4:38–4:44perversion. Proposal in negative inference affirmative perversion is first
63. 4:44–4:51inferred, thereafter negative perversion is cognized on its basis. But this view
64. 4:51–4:56is untenable. If affirmative perversion is already established the negative
65. 4:56–5:00example becomes pointless and if negative perversion is established only
66. 5:00–5:06after affirmative perversion, infinite regressorizes. Therefore negative perversion must be apprehended
67. 5:06–5:11independently. Affirmative perversion from negative
68. 5:11–5:18concomitance. Reply, affirmative perversion may be apprehended from negative concomitance
69. 5:18–5:23free from an extraneous condition. On the basis of the rule wherever the probandom
70. 5:23–5:28is absent, the reason is absent, it is established that wherever the reason is
71. 5:28–5:32present, the probandom is present.
72. 5:32–5:36The negative concomitance between possession of odor and absence of non-difference from
73. 5:36–5:40what is other than Earth establishes in Earth the relation that Earth differs from the other
74. 5:40–5:43eight substances.
75. 5:43–5:46Earthhood alone is the reason.
76. 5:46–5:51Objection, if affirmative provision is the cause, Earthhood itself, not possession
77. 5:51–5:58of odor will be the reason because possession of odor in earth is delimited by earthhood.
78. 5:58–6:04Reply, the probandom is difference from the other eight substances and the reason is earthhood.
79. 6:04–6:09Possession of odor does not delimit subjecthood, it is merely a special property of the substance
80. 6:09–6:10earth.
81. 6:10–6:17Thus Udayanakarya too does not regard the delimiter of subjecthood as the reason.
82. 6:17–6:18Alternative view
83. 6:18–6:2418. Alternatively, it may be said that in purely negative inference, cognition of negative
84. 6:24–6:28pervasion itself establishes the causal relation between the absence of the probandom and the
85. 6:28–6:34absence of the reason, therefore negative subsumptive reflection is the cause of inference.
86. 6:34–6:38On this view, subsumptive reflection alone is accepted as the common cause of both
87. 6:38–6:44affirmative and negative inference. It is no defect that the special causal complexes
88. 6:44–6:46of special inferences differ.
89. 6:46–6:50Objection, the probandom is unestablished.
90. 6:50–6:55Nineteen, objection, in the inference, earth differs from the other eight substances, the
91. 6:55–6:59difference serving as the probandom is not previously established, therefore purely negative
92. 6:59–7:02inference cannot be described.
93. 7:02–7:08Subjecthood, subject propertyhood, and cognition qualified by the probandom are all impossible.
94. 7:08–7:12But this objection assumes that the probandom is entirely unknown.
95. 7:12–7:17practice, cognition of the general form of the probandom and uncertainty about it in the subject are sufficient.
96. 7:18–7:20Examination.
97. 7:21–7:2520. Suppose the probandom is established by the stated negative inference.
98. 7:26–7:31If it has already been established through affirmative cognition, the reason would become purely affirmative,
99. 7:32–7:36and if the reason is not previously known, the defect of the reason's uncommonness would arise.
100. 7:36–7:42rise. Nevertheless, difference from the other eight substances is neither the nature of earth
101. 7:42–7:48or water nor merely the counter-positive absence of them. Since earth and water are previously known,
102. 7:48–7:54the probandom is not entirely unfamiliar. Dissimilarity is not unfamiliar.
103. 7:56–8:01Difference from the properties of the other substances, whose nature is being the counter
104. 8:01–8:05positive of an absolute absence occurring in water and the like, is not unfamiliar.
105. 8:06–8:10It is cognized on the basis of earthhood and similar properties.
106. 8:12–8:16When the absence of earthhood in water is apprehended, the counter-positiveness of
107. 8:16–8:20earthhood is also apprehended, therefore the cognition that earth differs from the other
108. 8:20–8:26substances is not wholly unestablished. Neutral absence is not the pro-bandom.
109. 8:26–8:3322. Some scholars say that the mutual absence of water and the other substances is itself the
110. 8:33–8:40probandom. But mutual absence of water and the like in general is itself unfamiliar. If a collection
111. 8:40–8:47of individual absences is made the probandom, the reason becomes uncommon. Therefore not mutual
112. 8:47–8:51absence, but a combined difference such as being distinct from light and from the 12 entities
113. 8:51–8:56beginning with water is to be adopted as the probandom.
114. 8:56–9:00Difference from the 12th beginning with water together with difference from light is the
115. 9:00–9:03probandom.
116. 9:03–9:0823. When doubt apprehends that earth is distinct from light, a subsequent doubt arises, is
117. 9:08–9:13earth, which is distinct from light, also distinct from the 12 entities beginning with
118. 9:13–9:14water?
119. 9:14–9:19The combined difference apprehended in that doubt can become the probandom.
120. 9:19–9:24Alternatively, the collection of the 13 mutual absences of water and the other entities, which
121. 9:24–9:28is the object of 13 doubts, determines the pervasion concerning the probandom in negative
122. 9:28–9:30inference.
123. 9:30–9:35Doubt about the negative concomitance of the probandom is definite.
124. 9:35–9:3624.
125. 9:36–9:41It cannot be said that negative inference is pointless because the probandom is established
126. 9:41–9:43in earth only as a matter of doubt.
127. 9:43–9:47If the probandom is certain in earth, its absence in the counter instances such
128. 9:47–9:52as water is also certain, and if it is doubtful in earth, doubt concerning its absence remains
129. 9:52–9:58in the counter instances. Therefore the view that the probandom is established in earth
130. 9:58–10:03only doubtfully merely confuses the pupil.
131. 10:03–10:07Prima-Facey Conclusion
132. 10:07–10:11This reputation also rejects the view that the controversial statement itself establishes
133. 10:11–10:15the probandom and therefore negative inference is useless.
134. 10:15–10:20What about the authority of the controversial statement does not yield ascertainment of
135. 10:20–10:23the probandom?
136. 10:23–10:25Negative inference is required to ascertain the probandom.
137. 10:25–10:29Doubt generated by the controversial statement cannot take its place.
138. 10:29–10:35With this, the prima facie account of purely negative inference comes to an end.
139. 10:35–10:40Established Conclusion Concerning Purely Negative Inference
140. 10:40–10:44Established conclusion, the difference of Earth from other substances can be
141. 10:44–10:49directly perceived in earthen objects such as jars, on this basis, the general form of
142. 10:49–10:54the probandom, difference concerning earth, is established.
143. 10:54–10:55Objection of the earlier scholars
144. 10:55–10:5827.
145. 10:58–11:01The earlier scholars object that mutual absence or difference from other substances is not
146. 11:01–11:06perceptible, because its counter positive may include imperceptible atoms and the
147. 11:06–11:07like.
148. 11:07–11:11Cognition of absence arises from non-apprehension of an eligible counter positive, mere non-apprehension
149. 11:11–11:14does not produce cognition of absence.
150. 11:14–11:19The proponent of the established conclusion replies that, in a locus where the existence
151. 11:19–11:24of an eligible counter positive is proved impossible, its non-apprehension produces cognition
152. 11:24–11:26of absence.
153. 11:26–11:30The absence of earthhood in an atom of water and the absence of color in air are known
154. 11:30–11:32in this way.
155. 11:32–11:36Eligible non-apprehension accompanied by hypothetical reasoning causes cognition
156. 11:36–11:39of absence.
157. 11:39–11:43Affirmative inference does not arise from affirmative perversion.
158. 11:43–11:48Objection, the difference of earth from water and other substances can be established by
159. 11:48–11:52affirmative inference, therefore negative inference is unnecessary.
160. 11:52–11:58Reply, cognition such as earth is not water is not always available through perception
161. 11:58–12:01or affirmative perversion.
162. 12:01–12:05Negative perversion, wherever earthhood is absent, absence of difference from earth
163. 12:05–12:09is absent, is required to establish the probandom.
164. 12:09–12:13Cognition alone does not establish complete exclusion of the counter-instance.
165. 12:15–12:23Re-establishment of an already established probandom. 29. It cannot be said that inference
166. 12:23–12:27is pointless because Earth's difference from other substances is already established.
167. 12:28–12:32Even when the general form of the probandom is previously known,
168. 12:32–12:34inference may produce subject-specific ascertainment.
169. 12:35–12:40In the inference speech as non-eternal, non-eternality is generally known,
170. 12:40–12:42but its ascertainment in speech arises through inference.
171. 12:44–12:46A jar can be the subject.
172. 12:48–12:53Objection, how can an earthen jar be the subject, since the doubt is all earth distinct from other
173. 12:53–12:57substances or not, concerns earth in general, not a particular jar?
174. 12:59–13:04Reply, doubt and a desire to establish the probandom difference delimited by earthhood
175. 13:04–13:09are possible in a jar. The subject may be either universal or particular.
176. 13:09–13:15Just as fire on a mountain is considered generally, yet a particular mountain becomes the subject.
177. 13:15–13:21Accertainment in something possessing the same property opposes doubt.
178. 13:21–13:27Alternative, all earth is not the subject, because in some portion of earth,
179. 13:27–13:30difference from other substances has been directly established,
180. 13:30–13:34therefore ascertainment in something possessing the same property opposes general doubt.
181. 13:34–13:41Established conclusion, where the probandom is certain in one portion and doubtful in another,
182. 13:41–13:46only the doubtful portion is the subject. Not all earth delimited by earthhood,
183. 13:46–13:50but the portion of earth subject to doubt becomes the subject.
184. 13:50–13:58Difference from others is established. Objection, earth differs from other substances,
185. 13:58–14:03can be established through affirmative cognition, therefore a negative example is unnecessary.
186. 14:03–14:09Reply, when the reason property earthhood delimits subjecthood, its relation to the
187. 14:09–14:14probandom difference from others is not clarified by affirmative perversion alone.
188. 14:15–14:19Negative perversion excludes the counter instance possessing the absence of the probandom.
189. 14:20–14:24Nevertheless, where affirmative perversion is fully available,
190. 14:24–14:26the negative example may be merely a reminder.
191. 14:28–14:29Alternative position
192. 14:29–14:3733. Alternatively, the 13 mutual absences of the 13 substances beginning with water may be taken
193. 14:37–14:43as probanda in earth. The counter positives of these absences, the substances beginning with
194. 14:43–14:48water, are familiar in other loci, therefore neither the defect of being purely affirmative
195. 14:48–14:55nor the reasons uncommonness arises. Or, after first establishing the 13 absences in water
196. 14:55–14:59and the like, difference from the thirteen substances may subsequently be established
197. 14:59–15:03in earth through negative inference.
198. 15:03–15:07Difference from what is different from earth is not the probandom.
199. 15:07–15:12Proposal, the mutual absence, in earth, of what is distinct both from water and the
200. 15:12–15:16rest in from earth should be the probandom.
201. 15:16–15:22Reply, establishing such a combined absence is unnecessary and over-inclusive.
202. 15:22–15:27It is sufficient to establish in earth the absence of the thirteen substances alone.
203. 15:27–15:32Nor is the problem removed by treating absence as the very nature of its locus, according
204. 15:32–15:36to the established conclusion, perceptual or affirmative negative cognition concerning
205. 15:36–15:39differences available.
206. 15:39–15:45The absolute absence of properties distinct from earthhood is the probandom.
207. 15:45–15:50Some scholars say that the absolute absence in earth of properties such as waterhood,
208. 15:50–15:53which are distinct from earthhood, is the probandom.
209. 15:53–15:57This absence is established through cognition of the difference of the properties occurring
210. 15:57–16:03in water and the like, therefore the probandom is not unfamiliar.
211. 16:03–16:08A collection of multiple absolute absences is not unestablished, each absence may be
212. 16:08–16:11known in a separate locus.
213. 16:11–16:14Cognition of the collection is the result of inference, the collection itself need
214. 16:14–16:18not be previously established.
215. 16:18–16:23explanation of the familiarity of the probandom.
216. 16:23–16:28Other scholars say that the absence of something whose counter positive is familiar is also
217. 16:28–16:30readily knowable.
218. 16:30–16:35Therefore the probandom difference from the other thirteen substances is not unfamiliar.
219. 16:35–16:41Rejoiner, water is not distinct from heaviness and the like, therefore water and the other
220. 16:41–16:44counter instances will sublate the probandom.
221. 16:44–16:49Reply, only denial of difference from the other substances sublates it, identity
222. 16:49–16:53property with one property does not deny every other difference.
223. 16:53–17:00The differences among 14 substances can coexist without contradiction in one locus.
224. 17:00–17:04Negative inference is not established by affirmative inference.
225. 17:04–17:10Objection, once the probandom has been established generally, its establishment in Earth can
226. 17:10–17:13arise through affirmative inference.
227. 17:13–17:18Reply, if being the locus of the probandom and the subject is made the reason, the
228. 17:18–17:24The same property would also have to be established in counter instances such as water.
229. 17:24–17:27Cognition of negative perversion is the cause of negative inference.
230. 17:27–17:31Affirmative perversion cannot take its place.
231. 17:31–17:35The counter inference earth is water because it possesses earthhood is fruitless because
232. 17:35–17:37of negative deviation.
233. 17:37–17:42As soon as non-waterhood is directly ascertained in an earthen jar, the counter inference
234. 17:42–17:45is sublated.
235. 17:45–17:53of the probandum is indispensable. Objection, in an inference concerning the self, the probandum
236. 17:53–17:58is not previously perceived, as in a living body possesses a self because of respiration
237. 17:58–18:07or desire. How, then, is the probandum of negative inference familiar? Reply, prior
238. 18:07–18:11establishment of the general notion of the probandum is sufficient, subject-specific
239. 18:11–18:16establishment is the result of inference. Although the non-selfhood of a jar is
240. 18:16–18:21not perceived, general cognition of the absence of selfhood and cognition of the meaning of
241. 18:21–18:27selfhood are available, therefore negative pervasion can be described.
242. 18:27–18:33Refutation of the objection that desire is not produced by an inherent cause.
243. 18:33–18:39Objection, desire is an effect, therefore its inherent cause is the self.
244. 18:39–18:44Through this general rule the self is established as distinct from the other eight substances,
245. 18:44–18:48and the presence of a self is inferred in a living body.
246. 18:48–18:53Reply, if mere conjunction with the self is taken as the reason for selfhood, overextension
247. 18:53–18:58follows because jars and the like are also conjoined with the self.
248. 18:58–19:02The delimiting character of the special relation through which respiration, desire, and the
249. 19:02–19:07like indicate the presence of a self must be clarified.
250. 19:07–19:11Some scholars say that being in effect produced by body's self-conjunction is the reason
251. 19:11–19:13for the presence of a self.
252. 19:13–19:18Mind a self-conjunction causes cognition, but the self is not an effect of cognition.
253. 19:18–19:25Examining this view, the proponent of the established conclusion clarifies subtle distinctions of causal relation in the next section.
254. 19:26–19:31Absence of delimitation by conjunction with the self and desire is unacceptable.
255. 19:32–19:37Forty, it may again be objected that conjunction with the self is the non-inherent cause of desire,
256. 19:38–19:41absence of the delimiting character of this conjunction is found in inert objects such as jars,
257. 19:42–19:45and on the basis of that absence the presence of a self in a living body can be inferred.
258. 19:45–19:53be inferred. But this argument too is unacceptable. If the delimiting character of conjunction with
259. 19:53–19:58the self as the non-inherent cause of desire is assumed already established in the living body,
260. 19:58–20:04the defect of establishing what is already established arises. And if it is not established,
261. 20:04–20:09negative inference cannot clarify either the absence of the probandom or the unfamiliar
262. 20:09–20:15probandom. If an arbitrary rule is accepted that an unknown object may be inferred from an
263. 20:15–20:19an uncommon property, the unacceptable consequence follows that any unfamiliar probandom desired
264. 20:19–20:24at will may be established from jahud or any other property.
265. 20:24–20:28Being delimited by conjunction with the self is selfhood, reply of the proponent of the
266. 20:28–20:35established conclusion. 41, the proponent of the established conclusion says that once
267. 20:35–20:40conjunction with the self has been established as the non-inherent cause of desire, the
268. 20:40–20:44inference takes the following form. Desire possesses desirehood because its non-inherent
269. 20:44–20:51cause is conjunction with the self. Desirehood is a universal property directly pervaded by
270. 20:51–20:55being a special quality apprehensible by an external sense, like soundhood.
271. 20:56–21:01The special relation of the body to conjunction with the self as a non-inherent cause is regarded
272. 21:01–21:07as delimited by the presence of the self. If mere conjunction with the self were regarded as the
273. 21:07–21:12productive cause of desire, overextension would follow because jars and the like are
274. 21:12–21:16can join with the self, therefore only conjunction with the self delimited by the presence of
275. 21:16–21:22the self is regarded as the non-inherent cause of desire.
276. 21:22–21:23Alternative doctrine of selfhood
277. 21:23–21:2542.
278. 21:25–21:30Alternatively, it may be said that being the substratum of desire residing in the
279. 21:30–21:33self is delimited by pervasive conjunction with the self.
280. 21:33–21:37It is being the substratum of a produced, or pervasive special quality, just as being
281. 21:37–21:42the substratum of sound is delimited by conjunction with air.
282. 21:42–21:46On this basis, substancehood can join with the self and the substratum of desire becomes
283. 21:46–21:49indicative of the self's presence.
284. 21:49–21:54In a living body, respiration, desire, movement, growth and decline of limbs, and the like are
285. 21:54–21:59apprehended as properties pervaded by the presence of the self.
286. 21:59–22:03In inert jars and the like, the absence of respiration or desire establishes the
287. 22:03–22:07absence of the self through negative concomitance.
288. 22:07–22:13Without negative inference the body cannot be established as possessing a self.
289. 22:13–22:18Objection, the presence of a self in a living body can be established by affirmative inference.
290. 22:18–22:23A living body possesses a self because of the absence of an obstruction to life, therefore
291. 22:23–22:27negative inference is unnecessary.
292. 22:27–22:32Reply, qualified cognition that a living body possesses a self is impossible without
293. 22:32–22:34negative inference.
294. 22:34–22:40One means of knowledge, affirmative inference, does not render another, negative inference,
295. 22:40–22:41useless.
296. 22:41–22:46Alternatively, conjunction with the self is the non-inherent cause of movement, because
297. 22:46–22:50movement is not produced by an impression, the presence in that conjunction of conjunction
298. 22:50–22:56with a self-possessing effort may be established through both affirmative and negative concomitance.
299. 22:56–23:00The living body or its limbs are substrata of that conjunction, and inert jar is
300. 23:00–23:03not such a substratum.
301. 23:03–23:08Desire resides in a substance different from the eight substances, negative inference.
302. 23:08–23:1444. Objection. How is the following inference negative? Desire resides in a substance distinct
303. 23:14–23:18from the eight substances, namely the self, because desire is a quality and does not
304. 23:18–23:23reside in the eight substances. Ignorance or absence of a substratum distinct from the
305. 23:23–23:26eight substances creates uncertainty.
306. 23:26–23:31Reply, the controversial statement or perception of a common property produces the doubt
307. 23:31–23:36Is the substratum of desire distinct from the eight substances or not?
308. 23:36–23:40Following this doubt, the difference of the substance bearing desire from the other eight
309. 23:40–23:44substances is ascertained through negative inference.
310. 23:44–23:49Alternatively, the substratum of desire may first be regarded as a substance distinct
311. 23:49–23:53from the eight substances, thereafter successive doubt and ascertainment concerning the nature
312. 23:53–23:57of that substance arise.
313. 23:57–24:01Rebutation of the objection that doubt does not determine negative inference
314. 24:03–24:08Objection doubt itself establishes the probandum therefore negative inference becomes pointless
315. 24:10–24:17Reply doubt does not ascertain the presence of the probandum in the subject it merely produces alternatives
316. 24:18–24:23Denial of the probandum and ascertainment of the provision of its absence arise through inference
317. 24:23–24:30Mere non-apprehension of an eligible probandom does not yield ascertainment of its absence.
318. 24:30–24:33Negative perversion is impossible without ascertainment of the absence of the reason
319. 24:33–24:37pervading the absence of the probandom.
320. 24:37–24:41Therefore negative inference is necessary after doubt.
321. 24:41–24:43First objection, 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 is the sole denotatum of a word in the meanings of validity and no ability, qualifierhood and qualifikanhood 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 probandom 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 no ability 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 pervations may happen to be present, 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. 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, there are only negative perversion 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 in purely affirmative inference is not a defect. Negative perversion from affirmative perversion. Proposal in negative inference affirmative perversion is first inferred, thereafter negative perversion is cognized on its basis. But this view is untenable. If affirmative perversion is already established the negative example becomes pointless and if negative perversion is established only after affirmative perversion, infinite regressorizes. Therefore negative perversion must be apprehended independently. Affirmative perversion from negative concomitance. Reply, affirmative perversion 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 Udayanakarya 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. Nineteen, 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. Subjecthood, subject propertyhood, and cognition qualified by the probandom are all impossible. But this objection assumes that the probandom is entirely unknown. 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, and if the reason is not previously known, the defect of the reason's uncommonness would arise. rise. 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. Difference 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. Neutral absence is not the pro-bandom. 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. 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 reputation 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. Affirmative inference does not arise from affirmative perversion. 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 perversion. Negative perversion, wherever earthhood is absent, absence of difference from earth is absent, is required to establish the probandom. 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 earth in 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. Accertainment 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. Established 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 perversion alone. Negative perversion excludes the counter instance possessing the absence of the probandom. Nevertheless, where affirmative perversion 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 thirteen 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 thirteen substances alone. Nor 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 in 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, the collection itself need not be previously established. explanation of the familiarity of the probandom. Other scholars say that the absence of something whose counter positive is familiar is also readily knowable. Therefore the probandom difference from the other thirteen 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 property 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 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. of the probandum is indispensable. Objection, in an inference concerning the self, the probandum is not previously perceived, as in a living body possesses a self because of respiration or desire. How, then, is the probandum of negative inference familiar? Reply, prior establishment of the general notion of the probandum 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 pervasion can be described. Refutation of the objection that desire is not produced by an 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. Absence of delimitation by conjunction with the self and desire is unacceptable. Forty, 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. be inferred. But this argument too is unacceptable. If the delimiting character of conjunction with the self 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 probandom or the unfamiliar probandom. If an arbitrary rule is accepted that an unknown object may be inferred from an an uncommon property, the unacceptable consequence follows that any unfamiliar probandom desired at will may be established from jahud or any other property. Being delimited by conjunction with the self is 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 can join 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. Rebutation of the objection that doubt does not determine negative inference Objection doubt itself establishes the probandum therefore negative inference becomes pointless Reply doubt does not ascertain the presence of the probandum in the subject it merely produces alternatives Denial of the probandum and ascertainment of the provision 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. First objection, doubt about the probandom is helpful.

← Transcript index