MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode3_Part9_RadioPlay.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 (0.99637)
Duration: 24:47
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.
0:08–0:18The suffix आप 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.
0:19–0:29In 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.
0:29–0:33doubt is a component of inference.
0:33–0:389. The objection raised against purely affirmative inference is untenable.
0:38–0:43The only auxiliary cause of inference is the doubt that obstructs establishment of the pro-bandom in the subject.
0:43–0:53This 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.
0:53–1:03A 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.
1:03–1:07Therefore knowability can be purely affirmative.
1:07–1:11Eligibility for doubt is a component.
1:11–1:22Alternatively, 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.
1:22–1:28But if eligibility for doubt is regarded merely as the absence of establishing and sublating
1:28–1:31evidence, defects arise.
1:31–1:36According to the established conclusion, cognition concerning uncertainty whether the counter-positive
1:36–1:41of an instantiated absolute absence is present in the subject constitutes eligibility for
1:41–1:42doubt.
1:42–1:47Nevertheless, according to scholars who regard noability as merely the counter-positive
1:47–1:52of an absolute absence, the doubt is the jar knowable or not, itself is accepted as an
1:52–1:55auxiliary cause.
1:55–1:59Assertainment of Provision on one side is sufficient.
1:59–2:04Objection, in purely affirmative inference there is no characteristic concerning absence
2:04–2:09of a counter instance, how, then, is the reason probative?
2:09–2:14Reply, for probativity, ascertainment of either affirmative or negative provision
2:14–2:16is sufficient.
2:16–2:21In an affirmative negative inference both pervasions may happen to be present, but both
2:21–2:24are not indispensable to causality.
2:24–2:29Cognition of the absence of the reason in the counter instance assists negative pervasion,
2:29–2:35in purely affirmative inference there is no counter instance, so it is unnecessary.
2:35–2:40With this, the established conclusion concerning purely affirmative inference comes to an
2:40–2:42end.
2:42–2:45Purely negative inference.
2:45–2:51of purely negative inference. An inference having no similar instance and arising from
2:51–2:56cognition of negative provision is purely negative.
2:56–3:02Example, Earth differs from the other eight substances because it possesses odor. Here
3:02–3:07there is no odor in substances other than Earth, therefore the probandom has no affirmative
3:07–3:12example. The inference arises through the negative provision wherever there is absence
3:12–3:16of difference from the other eight substances, there is absence of odor.
3:16–3:20Objection, there is no negative inference.
3:20–3:2513. Objection, positive cognition of pervasion and cognition of subject propertyhood alone
3:25–3:31cause inference, cognition of negative pervasion produces only cognition of negative concomitance.
3:31–3:35Therefore purely negative inference is not an independent inference.
3:35–3:39The prima facie opponent says that in affirmative inference, affirmative pervasion and subject
3:39–3:44propertyhood our causes, in negative inference, there are only negative pervasion and negative
3:44–3:48concomitance. Therefore cognition in the form of inference does not arise.
3:50–3:51Refutation of the Objection
3:53–3:5914. It is unnecessary to posit one and the same kind of cognition is the common cause of affirmative
3:59–4:05and negative inference. Both, the pervaded reason occurs in the subject and the absence of the
4:05–4:11reason pervades the absence of the probandom may cause their respective inferences.
4:11–4:16It cannot be said that this breaks causal commonality and that unity is required just as one sense
4:16–4:19or den causes all four kinds of cognition.
4:19–4:25In inference, distinct causal complexes produced their respective effects.
4:25–4:30The absence of the causes of positive inference and purely negative inference is not a defect.
4:30–4:37Likewise, the absence of a negative cause in purely affirmative inference is not a defect.
4:37–4:41Negative Provision from Affirmative Provision
4:41–4:46Proposal in negative inference, affirmative provision is first inferred, thereafter negative
4:46–4:50provision is cognized on its basis.
4:50–4:53But this view is untenable.
4:53–4:58If affirmative provision is already established, the negative example becomes pointless, and
4:58–5:03If negative perversion is established only after affirmative perversion, infinite regressorizes.
5:03–5:09Therefore negative perversion must be apprehended independently.
5:09–5:12Affirmative perversion from negative concomitance
5:12–5:19Reply, affirmative perversion may be apprehended from negative concomitance free from an extraneous
5:19–5:21condition.
5:21–5:25On the basis of the rule wherever the probandom is absent, the reason is absent, it
5:25–5:32It is established that wherever the reason is present, the probandom is present.
5:32–5:36The negative concomitance between possession of odor and absence of non-difference from
5:36–5:40what is other than earth establishes in earth the relation that earth differs from the
5:40–5:43other eight substances.
5:43–5:46Earthhood alone is the reason.
5:46–5:51Objection, if affirmative provision is the cause, earthhood itself, not possession
5:51–5:58of odor will be the reason because possession of odor in earth is delimited by earthhood.
5:58–6:02Reply, the probandom is difference from the other eight substances, and the reason is
6:02–6:08earthhood. Possession of odor does not delimit subjecthood, it is merely a special property
6:08–6:14of the substance earth. Thus Udayanakarya too does not regard the delimiter of subjecthood
6:14–6:17as the reason.
6:17–6:18Alternative View
6:18–6:2418. Alternatively, it may be said that in purely negative inference, cognition of negative
6:24–6:28pervasion itself establishes the causal relation between the absence of the probandom and the
6:28–6:32absence of the reason, therefore negative subsumptive reflection is the cause of inference.
6:34–6:38On this view, subsumptive reflection alone is accepted as the common cause of both
6:38–6:44affirmative and negative inference. It is no defect that the special causal complexes
6:44–6:47of special inferences differ.
6:47–6:50Objection The probandom is unestablished.
6:50–6:5119.
6:51–6:54Objection In the inference, earth differs from the other
6:54–6:58eight substances, the difference serving as the probandom is not previously established,
6:58–7:02therefore purely negative inference cannot be described.
7:02–7:04Subjecthood Subject propertyhood, and cognition qualified
7:04–7:08by the probandom are all impossible.
7:08–7:12But this objection assumes that the probandom is entirely unknown.
7:12–7:17practice, cognition of the general form of the probandom and uncertainty about it in the subject are sufficient.
7:17–7:20Examination.
7:20–7:3720. 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.
7:37–7:42Nevertheless, difference from the other eight substances is neither the nature of earth
7:42–7:46or water nor merely the counter-positive absence of them.
7:46–7:53Since earth and water are previously known, the probandom is not entirely unfamiliar.
7:53–7:57Dissimilarity is not unfamiliar.
7:57–8:01Difference from the properties of the other substances, whose nature is being the counter-positive
8:01–8:06of an absolute absence occurring in water and the like, is not unfamiliar.
8:06–8:12It is cognized on the basis of earthhood and similar properties.
8:12–8:16When the absence of earthhood in water is apprehended, the counter-positiveness of earthhood
8:16–8:21is also apprehended, therefore the cognition that earth differs from the other substances
8:21–8:24is not wholly unestablished.
8:24–8:27Mutual absence is not the probandom.
8:27–8:2922.
8:29–8:33Some scholars say that the mutual absence of water and the other substances is itself
8:33–8:35the probandom.
8:35–8:40With mutual absence of water and the like in general is itself unfamiliar, if a collection
8:40–8:46of individual absences is made the probandom, the reason becomes uncommon.
8:46–8:50Therefore not mutual absence, but a combined difference such as being distinct from light
8:50–8:57and from the twelve entities beginning with water is to be adopted as the probandom.
8:57–9:00Difference from the twelve beginning with water together with difference from light
9:00–9:03is the probandom.
9:03–9:0823. When doubt apprehends that earth is distinct from light, a subsequent doubt arises, is
9:08–9:13earth, which is distinct from light, also distinct from the twelve entities beginning
9:13–9:19with water? The combined difference apprehended in that doubt can become the probandom.
9:19–9:24Alternatively, the collection of the thirteen mutual absences of water and the other entities,
9:24–9:27which is the object of thirteen doubts, determines the pervasion concerning the
9:27–9:30probandom in negative inference.
9:30–9:35What about the negative concomitance of the probandum is definite?
9:35–9:3624.
9:36–9:41It cannot be said that negative inference is pointless because the probandum is established
9:41–9:43in earth only as a matter of doubt.
9:43–9:47If the probandum is certain in earth, its absence in the counter instances such as
9:47–9:52water is also certain, and if it is doubtful in earth, doubt concerning its absence remains
9:52–9:56in the counter instances.
9:56–9:59Therefore the view that the probandum is established in earth only doubtfully merely
9:59–10:03confuses the pupil.
10:03–10:07Prima-Facey Conclusion
10:07–10:11This reputation also rejects the view that the controversial statement itself establishes
10:11–10:15the probandom and therefore negative inference is useless.
10:15–10:20Doubt about the authority of the controversial statement does not yield ascertainment of
10:20–10:23the probandom.
10:23–10:25Negative inference is required to ascertain the probandom.
10:25–10:29Doubt generated by the controversial statement cannot take its place.
10:29–10:35Like this, the prima facie account of purely negative inference comes to an end.
10:35–10:41Established Conclusion Concerning Purely Negative Inference
10:41–10:44Established conclusion, the difference of Earth from other substances can be directly
10:44–10:50perceived in earthen objects such as jars, on this basis, the general form of the probandom
10:50–10:54– difference concerning Earth – is established.
10:54–10:55Objection of the earlier scholars
10:55–11:0127. The earlier scholars object that mutual absence or difference from other substances
11:01–11:07is not perceptible because its counter positive may include imperceptible atoms and the like.
11:07–11:11Cognition of absence arises from non-apprehension of an eligible counter positive, mere non-apprehension
11:11–11:14does not produce cognition of absence.
11:14–11:19The proponent of the established conclusion replies that, in a locus where the existence
11:19–11:23of an eligible counter positive is proved impossible, its non-apprehension produces
11:23–11:29cognition of absence. The absence of Earthhood in an atom of water and the absence of color
11:29–11:35in air are known in this way. Eligible non-apprehension accompanied by hypothetical reasoning causes
11:35–11:39cognition of absence.
11:39–11:43Negative inference does not arise from affirmative pervasion.
11:43–11:48Objection, the difference of Earth from water and other substances can be established
11:48–11:52by affirmative inference, therefore negative inference is unnecessary.
11:52–11:58Reply, cognition such as earth is not water is not always available through perception
11:58–12:01or affirmative provision.
12:01–12:05Negative provision, wherever earthhood is absent, absence of difference from earth
12:05–12:09is absent, is required to establish the probandom.
12:09–12:16Positive cognition alone does not establish complete exclusion of the counter instance.
12:16–12:23of an already established probandom. 29. It cannot be said that inference is pointless
12:23–12:29because Earth's difference from other substances is already established. Even when the general
12:29–12:36form of the probandom is previously known, inference may produce subject-specific ascertainment.
12:36–12:40In the inference speech as non-eternal, non-eternality is generally known, but its
12:40–12:44ascertainment in speech arises through inference.
12:44–12:47A jar can be the subject.
12:47–12:53Objection, how can an earthen jar be the subject, since the doubt is all earth distinct
12:53–12:59from other substances or not, concerns earthen general, not a particular jar?
12:59–13:04Reply, doubt and a desire to establish the probandom difference delimited by earthhood
13:04–13:06are possible in a jar.
13:06–13:10The subject may be either universal or particular.
13:10–13:15Just as fire on a mountain is considered generally, yet a particular mountain becomes the subject.
13:15–13:17Subject.
13:17–13:22Acertainment in something possessing the same property opposes doubt.
13:22–13:27Alternative, all earth is not the subject, because in some portion of earth, difference
13:27–13:32from other substances has been directly established, therefore ascertainment in something possessing
13:32–13:36the same property opposes general doubt.
13:36–13:41Established conclusion, where the probandom is certain in one portion and doubtful in another,
13:41–13:44only the doubtful portion is the subject.
13:44–13:50Not all earth delimited by earthhood, but the portion of earth subject to doubt becomes the subject.
13:50–13:54Difference from others is established.
13:54–14:04Objection, earth differs from other substances, can be established through affirmative cognition, therefore a negative example is unnecessary.
14:04–14:14Reply, when the reason property earthhood delimits subjecthood, its relation to the probandom difference from others is not clarified by affirmative provision alone.
14:14–14:20Negative Provision excludes the counter-instance possessing the absence of the probandom.
14:20–14:27Nevertheless, where affirmative provision is fully available, the negative example may be merely a reminder.
14:27–14:30Alternative Position
14:30–14:3633. Alternatively, the thirteen mutual absences of the thirteen substances beginning with
14:36–14:42water may be taken as probanda in earth. The counter positives of these absences, the substances
14:42–14:47beginning with water, are familiar in other loci, therefore neither the defect of being
14:47–14:51purely affirmative nor the reasons uncommonness arises.
14:51–14:56Or, after first establishing the thirteen absences in water and the like, difference
14:56–15:01from the thirteen substances may subsequently be established in earth through negative inference.
15:02–15:05Difference from what is different from earth is not the probandom.
15:07–15:12Proposal, the mutual absence, in earth, of what is distinct both from water and the rest
15:12–15:19in from earth should be the probandom. Reply, establishing such a combined absence is
15:19–15:24unnecessary and over-inclusive. It is sufficient to establish in earth the
15:24–15:30absence of the thirteen substances alone. Nor is the problem removed by treating absence as the
15:30–15:35very nature of its locus, according to the established conclusion, perceptual or affirmative
15:35–15:41negative cognition concerning differences available. The absolute absence of properties
15:41–15:47distinct from earthhood is the probandom. Some scholars say that the absolute absence in
15:47–15:52earth of properties such as waterhood, which are distinct from earthhood, is the probandom.
15:52–16:01This absence is established through cognition of the difference of the properties occurring in water and the like, therefore the probandum is not unfamiliar.
16:01–16:09A collection of multiple absolute absences is not unestablished, each absence may be known in a separate locus.
16:09–16:16Cognition of the collection is the result of inference, the collection itself need not be previously established.
16:16–16:21Alternative explanation of the familiarity of the probandum
16:21–16:28Other scholars say that the absence of something whose counter-positive is familiar is also readily knowable.
16:28–16:34Therefore the probandom difference from the other 13 substances is not unfamiliar.
16:34–16:44Rejoiner, water is not distinct from heaviness and the like, therefore water and the other counter instances will sublate the probandom.
16:44–16:49Reply, only denial of difference from the other substances sublates it.
16:49–16:53Identity with one property does not deny every other difference.
16:53–16:59The differences among 14 substances can coexist without contradiction in one locus.
16:59–17:04Negative inference is not established by affirmative inference.
17:04–17:13Objection, once the probandom has been established generally, its establishment in Earth can arise through affirmative inference.
17:13–17:23Reply, 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.
17:23–17:30Cognition of negative perversion is the cause of negative inference, affirmative perversion cannot take its place.
17:30–17:37The counter inference earth is water because it possesses earthhood is fruitless because of negative deviation.
17:37–17:44As soon as non-waterhood is directly ascertained in an earthen jar, the counter-inference is sublated.
17:44–17:59Familiarity 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.
17:59–18:04How, then, is the probandom of negative inference familiar?
18:04–18:14Reply, prior establishment of the general notion of the probandom is sufficient, subject-specific establishment is the result of inference.
18:14–18:25Although 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.
18:25–18:33Refutation of the objection that desire is not produced by an inherent cause.
18:33–18:39Objection, desire is an effect, therefore its inherent cause is the self.
18:39–18:44Through this general rule the self is established as distinct from the other eight substances,
18:44–18:48and the presence of a self is inferred in a living body.
18:48–18:53Reply, if mere conjunction with the self is taken as the reason for selfhood, overextension
18:53–18:58follows because jars and the like are also conjoined with the self.
18:58–19:02The delimiting character of the special relation through which respiration, desire, and
19:02–19:07and the like indicate the presence of a self must be clarified.
19:07–19:11Some scholars say that being in effect produced by body's self-conjunction is the reason for
19:11–19:17the presence of a self, mind a self-conjunction causes cognition, but the self is not an effect
19:17–19:19of cognition.
19:19–19:23Examining this view, the proponent of the established conclusion clarifies subtle distinctions
19:23–19:28of causal relation in the next section.
19:28–19:32of delimitation by conjunction with the self and desire is unacceptable.
19:33–19:3840. It may again be objected that conjunction with the self is the non-inherent cause of desire,
19:38–19:42absence of the delimiting character of this conjunction is found in inert objects such as
19:42–19:46jars, and on the basis of that absence the presence of a self in a living body can be inferred.
19:47–19:53But this argument too is unacceptable. If the delimiting character of conjunction with the
19:53–19:58As the self as the non-inherent cause of desire is assumed already established in the living
19:58–20:03body, the defect of establishing what is already established arises.
20:03–20:08And if it is not established, negative inference cannot clarify either the absence of the probandum
20:08–20:11or the unfamiliar probandum.
20:11–20:15If an arbitrary rule is accepted that an unknown object may be inferred from an uncommon
20:15–20:19property, the unacceptable consequence follows that any unfamiliar probandum desired at
20:19–20:24will may be established from jahud or any other property.
20:24–20:28Being delimited by conjunction with the self is selfhood, reply of the proponent of the
20:28–20:35established conclusion. 41, the proponent of the established conclusion says that once
20:35–20:40conjunction with the self has been established as the non-inherent cause of desire, the
20:40–20:44inference takes the following form, desire possesses desirehood because its non-inherent
20:44–20:50cause is conjunction with the self. Desirehood is a universal property directly
20:50–20:56pervaded by being a special quality apprehensible by an external sense, like soundhood.
20:56–21:01The special relation of the body to conjunction with the self as a non-inherent cause is
21:01–21:05regarded as delimited by the presence of the self.
21:05–21:10If mere conjunction with the self were regarded as the productive cause of desire, overextension
21:10–21:14would follow because jars and the like are conjoined with the self, therefore only
21:14–21:18conjunction with the self delimited by the presence of the self is regarded as the
21:18–21:22non-inherent cause of desire.
21:22–21:23Alternative doctrine of selfhood
21:23–21:2542.
21:25–21:30Alternatively, it may be said that being the substratum of desire residing in the self
21:30–21:33is delimited by pervasive conjunction with the self.
21:33–21:37It is being the substratum of a produced, or pervasive special quality, just as being
21:37–21:42the substratum of sound is delimited by conjunction with air.
21:42–21:46On this basis, substancehood can join with the self and the substratum of desire
21:46–21:52becomes indicative of the self's presence. In a living body, respiration, desire, movement,
21:52–21:57growth and decline of limbs, and the like are apprehended as properties pervaded by the presence
21:57–22:03of the self. In inert jars and the like, the absence of respiration or desire establishes
22:03–22:09the absence of the self through negative concomitance. Without negative inference the body cannot
22:09–22:13be established as possessing a self.
22:13–22:17Objection. The presence of a self in a living body can be established by affirmative
22:17–22:23inference. A living body possesses a self because of the absence of an obstruction to life.
22:23–22:30Therefore negative inference is unnecessary. Reply, qualified cognition that a living body
22:30–22:36possesses a self is impossible without negative inference. One means of knowledge, affirmative
22:36–22:39inference, does not render another negative inference useless.
22:41–22:45Alternatively, conjunction with the self is the non-inherent cause of movement,
22:45–22:50because movement is not produced by an impression, the presence in that conjunction of conjunction
22:50–22:54with a self-possessing effort may be established through both affirmative and negative concomitance.
22:55–23:00The living body or its limbs are substrata of that conjunction, and inert jar is not such a
23:00–23:07substratum. Desire resides in a substance different from the eight substances, negative inference.
23:09–23:1444. Objection. How is the following inference negative? Desire resides in a substance distinct
23:14–23:18from the eight substances, namely the self, because desire is a quality and does not reside in
23:18–23:24the eight substances. Ignorance or absence of a substratum distinct from the eight substances
23:24–23:30creates uncertainty. Reply, the controversial statement or perception of a common property
23:30–23:35produces the doubt is the substratum of desire distinct from the eight substances or not?
23:36–23:40Following this doubt, the difference of the substance bearing desire from the other eight
23:40–23:46substances is ascertained through negative inference. Alternatively, the substratum of
23:46–23:50desire may first be regarded as a substance distinct from the eight substances,
23:50–23:54thereafter successive doubt and ascertainment concerning the nature of that substance arise.
23:54–24:01Recutation of the objection that doubt does not determine negative inference.
24:01–24:08Objection doubt itself establishes the probandom, therefore negative inference becomes pointless.
24:08–24:16Reply, doubt does not ascertain the presence of the probandom in the subject, it merely produces
24:16–24:21alternatives. Denial of the probandom and ascertainment of the provision of its absence
24:21–24:24arise through inference.
24:24–24:30Near non-apprehension of an eligible probandom does not yield ascertainment of its absence,
24:30–24:34negative perversion is impossible without ascertainment of the absence of the reason pervading the
24:34–24:36absence of the probandom.
24:36–24:41Therefore negative inference is necessary after doubt.
24:41–24:44If you have any objection, doubt about the probandum is helpful.

Plain text

Refutation of the view that cognition of the individual is the denotatum of a word. The suffix आप 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-bandom 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 Provision 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 provision is sufficient. In an affirmative negative inference both pervasions 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 pervasion, 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. 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 pervasion and cognition of subject propertyhood alone cause inference, cognition of negative pervasion 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 pervasion and subject propertyhood our causes, in negative inference, there are 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 or den 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. Mutual absence is not the probandom. 22. Some scholars say that the mutual absence of water and the other substances is itself the probandom. With 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 twelve entities beginning with water is to be adopted as the probandom. Difference from the twelve 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 twelve entities beginning with water? The combined difference apprehended in that doubt can become the probandom. Alternatively, the collection of the thirteen mutual absences of water and the other entities, which is the object of thirteen doubts, determines the pervasion concerning the probandom in negative inference. What about the negative concomitance of the probandum is definite? 24. It cannot be said that negative inference is pointless because the probandum is established in earth only as a matter of doubt. If the probandum 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 probandum 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. Doubt 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. Like 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. Negative inference does not arise from affirmative pervasion. 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. 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. Subject. Acertainment 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 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 thirteen mutual absences of the thirteen 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 thirteen 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 probandum 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. Alternative explanation of the familiarity of the probandum Other scholars say that the absence of something whose 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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. Denial of the probandom and ascertainment of the provision of its absence arise through inference. Near 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. If you have any objection, doubt about the probandum is helpful.

← Transcript index