Nyāya Sūtras 40

Moreover, common to the two kinds of logical reason and to the two kinds of example, when there is a twofoldness of subsumption, is:

Nyāyasūtra 1.1.39: The conclusion is the restatement of the proposition on the basis of the statement of the logical reason.

Whether stated by similarity or by dissimilarity, as is subsumed in accordance with the example, [so is the conclusion:] 'Therefore, because it possesses the property of being produced, sound is impermanent.' The conclusion (nigamana) is so called because by it the proposition, the logical reason, the example, and the application are brought together (nigamyante) into one: they are brought together—supported—connected. Among these, first, when the logical reason is stated by similarity, the sentence is: 'Sound is impermanent' is the proposition; 'Because it possesses the property of being produced' is the logical reason; 'A substance such as a cooking pot, which possesses the property of being produced, is impermanent' is the example; 'And sound likewise possesses the property of being produced' is the application; 'Therefore, because it possesses the property of being produced, sound is impermanent' is the conclusion. When stated by dissimilarity also: 'Sound is impermanent, because it possesses the property of being produced;

a substance such as the self, which possesses the property of not being produced, is observed to be permanent; and sound is not likewise possessing the property of not being produced; therefore, because it possesses the property of being produced, sound is impermanent.' And in a sentence that is an aggregate of components of an inference, the means of valid cognition establish objects by combining through their mutual relation. The combination is as follows: The proposition has the character of verbal testimony, because the instruction of a trustworthy person is connected with perception and inference, and because a non-seer cannot possess independence. The logical reason is inference, because similarity is apprehended in the example; and that has been explained in the commentary on the example. The example has the character of perception, because the unseen is established through the seen. The application is comparison, because of the subsumption 'so', or because, when there is a negation of the property of comparison as 'not so', the subsumption of the opposite property is established. The conclusion is the demonstration of the capacity of all [components] to bring about the apprehension of a single object. Mutual relation also [is shown]: if there were no proposition, the logical reason and the other [components], having no locus, would not function.

If there were no logical reason, what would be shown to be the instrument of proof? In what would there be subsumption with regard to the example and the subject of inference? And on the basis of the statement of what would the restatement of the proposition be the conclusion? If there were no example, by what would similarity or dissimilarity, which establishes the subject of inference, be introduced, or by virtue of the similarity of what would subsumption proceed? And without the application, the proving property, not having been subsumed in the subject of inference, could not establish the object. And in the absence of the conclusion, who could convey that the proposition and the rest, whose connections were not integrated, proceed toward a single object and that it is so? Now, the function of the components of an inference: the function of the proposition is the introduction of the connection between the property to be proved and the subject possessing the property. The function of the logical reason is the statement that the property to be proved—whether similar to or the opposite of the example—has the character of an instrument of proof. The function of the example is the demonstration, in a single locus, of the relation of provable and prover between the two properties. The function of the application is the establishment of the co-location of the property functioning as the instrument of proof with the property to be proved. The function of the conclusion is the exclusion of any contingent attribution of the opposite in the subject of inference, once the relation of provable and prover between the two properties present in the example is established. And when there is this correctness of the logical reason and the example, a multitude of futile rejoinders and points of defeat cannot proceed, because countering by similarity and dissimilarity is defective. Indeed, without determining the relation of provable and prover between the two properties in the example, the proponent of a futile rejoinder objects; but when the relation of provable and prover between the two properties situated in the example is determined and apprehended, it is the adoption of the property functioning as the instrument of proof as the logical reason, not mere similarity nor mere dissimilarity.