Nyaya Ratnamala of Parthasarathi Misra 4.4.p12

4.4.p12

This is the meaning: granted that coexistence is not observed everywhere, its observation in two or three places is indeed easy to do. With just that much, in the absence of observing a counterexample, inference occurs. For if an invariable rule in the form of pervasion over all places and times were admitted by us to be an auxiliary to inference, then there would be an objection. But it is not stated by us in this way. Rather, wherever smoke and the like are seen, there everywhere without exception they coexist with fire and the like, and they are not seen where there is no fire—just this much is the cause for the arising of an inference. For just this much makes smoke convey fire to ordinary people. But it does not depend on apprehending the positive and negative concomitance in all subjects and counter-subjects, which would make the means of valid cognition hard to attain. Therefore, the designation of 'invariable rule' is not made with reference to all places and times; rather, whichever invariable rule of coexistence of the sign with the possessor of the sign holds in observed places and times, that alone is called the invariable rule. Therefore, that alone is the auxiliary to inference. And since that is easily accessible through multiple observations alone, the invariable rule of coexistence with the possessor of the sign is not unauthoritative. As he said: 'By the mere observation of coexistence, it is an indicator of its coexistent partner.'