Nyāya Sūtras 100

Not so, because of the existence of a difference from a part, fright, and resemblance.

This is not a deviation of inference; rather, it is a presumption of inference where there is no inference at all. How so? What is undifferentiated cannot be a mark. For one who observes rainwater distinguished from earlier water, the greater swiftness of the current, and the carrying of an abundance of foam, fruits, leaves, wood, and so forth, infers by the fullness of the river that ‘the god has rained upstream,’ not by a mere increase in water. When the majority of ants carry their eggs, it is inferred that ‘there will be rain,’ not when only a few do. The false inference [that a peacock is crying] occurs because of non-discernment of the specific difference, thinking, ‘this is not a peacock's cry, this sound merely resembles it.’ But for one who apprehends the distinct cry of a peacock from a sound that is distinct from what resembles it, the distinct object that is apprehended is the mark, as in the case of snakes and so forth. Thus, this is the fault of the inferrer, not of inference—that someone wishes to know an object to be inferred by means of a specific characteristic through the observation of an undifferentiated object. //38