[Footnote 275: Cf. my note pp. 7, 8, (on the Chárváka-darśana) for the _upádhi_. The _upádhi_ or "condition" limits a too general middle term; it is defined as "that which always accompanies the major term, but does not always accompany the middle." Thus if the condition "produced from wet fuel" is added to "fire," the argument "the mountain has smoke because it has fire" is no longer a false one. Here, in answer to the Nyáya argument in the text, our author objects that its middle term ("from the fact of its being a special quality belonging to an organ of sense") is too wide, _i.e._, it is sometimes found where the major term "non-eternal" is not found, as, _e.g._, in _sound_ itself, according to the Mímáṃsá doctrine. To obviate this he proposes to add the "condition," "not causing audition," as he will readily concede that all those things are non-eternal which, _while not causing audition_, are special qualities belonging to an organ of sense, as, _e.g._, colour. But I need scarcely add that this addition would make the whole argument nugatory. In fact, the Púrva Mímáṃsá and the Nyáya can never argue together on this question of the eternity of sound, as their points of view are so totally different.] [Footnote 276: In the former case we have the _dhwaṃsa_ of sound, in the latter its _prágabháva_.] [Footnote 277: In p. 131, line 12, I read _samapauhi_ for _samápohi_, _i.e._, the passive aorist of _sam_ + _apa_ + _úh_.] [Footnote 278: I do not know this legend. Tála and Betála are the two demons who carry Vikramáditya on their shoulders in the Siṃhásan-battísí. It appears to be referred to here as illustrating how one answer can suffice for two opponents.] [Footnote 279: This is probably a work by Bhásarvajña (see Dr. Hall's _Bibl. Index_, p. 26).] [Footnote 280: _Dhvani_, or our "articulate noise," produces the vibrations of air which render manifest the ever-existing sound. There is always an eternal but inaudible hum going on, which we modify into a definite speech by our various articulations. I take _saṃskṛita_ here as equivalent to _abhivyakta_.] [Footnote 281: I read in p. 131, line 15, _saṃskárakasaṃskáryabhávábhávánumánam_.] [Footnote 282: It would be a case of _vyabhichára_. The Naiyáyika argument would seem to be something as follows:--Sound is not thus manifested by noise, since both are simultaneously perceived by the senses, just as we see in the parallel case of the individual and its species; these are both perceived together, but the individual is not manifested by the species. But the Mímáṃsá rejoins that this would equally apply to the soul and knowledge; as the internal sense perceives both simultaneously, and therefore knowledge ought not to be manifested by the soul, which is contrary to experience. But I am not sure that I rightly understand the argument.] [Footnote 283: Here begins a long _púrva-paksha_, from p. 131, line 18, down to p. 133, line 9; see p. 198 _infra_.]