Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources c17.2

c17.2

As regards this Statement of the Inference, it consists of three Propositions, technically called ‘*Avayavas*,’ Factors, of the Inferential Statement. These are—(1) Statement of the Proposition, (2) the Statement of the Major Premiss—involving the Statement of the Corroborative Instance, and (3) the Statement of the Minor Premiss—involving the Statement of the Probans or Inferential Indicative.—(1) The Statement of the Proposition serves to point out what is intended to be proved by the Inference; *e.g.*, ‘Word-Sound is eternal;’ it is only when this has been stated that we can intelligently proceed with the Inference.—(2) The Major Premiss states the Corroborative Instance and shows that there is an unfailing relationship between what is sought to be proved (the Probandum) (*Eternality*) and that by means of which it is sought to be proved (the Probans); and this relationship must be indicated as existing in cases that are well known to both parties; for instance, when it is intended to prove the presence of *Fire* by means of the presence of *Smoke*, the Major Premiss is stated thus:—‘Wherever there is *Smoke* there is *Fire*, as in the Kitchen.’ Instances that do not apply to the case in question are regarded as *wrong*—दृष्टान्ताभास .—Lastly, inasmuch as Inferential Cognition follows upon the Perception of one of the two factors between which the permanent relationship subsists,—the perception of one factor becomes a necessary element in all Inferences; and it is as stating this, the presence of the one factor, that the Minor Premiss becomes essential. For instance, when seeking to prove the presence of *Fire* on the Hill by means of the presence of *Smoke*, it is necessary to make the statement that ‘there is *Smoke* on the Hill;’ without which the conclusion—that ‘there is *Fire* on the Hill’—could not be rightly deduced. (*Prakaraṇapañchikā*, p. 82.)