काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

CHAPTER V 159 हेतुः शुनो बिभ्यदपि वीरत्वेन सिंहान्न बिभेतीति विरुद्धोपि गोदा- वरीतीरे सिंहसद्भावः प्रत्यक्षादनुमानाद्वा न निश्चितः । अपि तु वचनात् । न च वचनस्य प्रामाण्यमस्ति । अर्थेनाप्रतिबन्धादित्य- सिद्धश्च तत्कथमेवंविधाद्धेतोः साध्यसिद्धिः । तथा "निःशेषच्युत-" इत्यादौ गमकतया यानि चन्दनच्यवना- दीन्युपात्तानि तानि कारणान्तरतोपि भवन्ति। अतश्चात्रैव स्नान- there is danger, under certain circumstances, such as by the order of his preceptor or master, under the influence of his love for his beloved ; so that the inferential pro- bans (premise) is 'inconclusive' (the 'coward's roaming' being not invariably concomitant with the 'absence of danger');—(b) and again, it is possible that the person addressed may be a brave man who, even though fearing the dog, would not fear the lion, and thus the premise is also 'contradictory' (the 'presence of the lion' not nece- ssarily involving the impossibility of the 'fearing man' not roaming that way) ;—(c) further,' the presence of the lion' on the banks of the Godāvarī is not something known either by direct Perception or by Inference, it is learnt only from the words (of the speaker), and since no reliability belongs to the mere word (of a stray person), until it has been found to be consonant with facts, the probans is 'unknown' also.—Thus the probans being vitiated by three fallacies, how can it lead to any valid inference of the conclusion ?—Further, in the case of the verse 'the san- dal-paint over thy breasts has been entirely rubbed out...... thou hast not gone to the wretched man', the marks— rubbing out of the sandal-paint and so forth—which have been set forth as suggestive (of the conclusion 'thou hast gone') are such as could be brought out by (and hence be indicative of) other circumstances also ; in fact even in