1918.] The Tativa-cintamani. 297 
diagram II, in which outside the region of the nameable there is. 
nothing from which the knowable may be absent. 
2. Invariable concomitance is the non-presence of the 
middle term in that locus of the non-existence of the major 
term which is not the 
locus of the major term Diagram III. 
itself, e.g. 
This is occupied by the 
ape, 
because it is the tree. 
Here 
“occupied by the ape”’ 
isthe major term. In 
diagram ITI the tree is 
the locus of the major term itself.” This definition too is defec- 
tive as it, like the previous one, does not apply to an exclusively 
affirmative inference. 
. Invariable concomitance is the non-co-presence of the 
middle term with that reciprocal non-existence whose counter- 
part abides in the locus of the major term, ¢.g. 
The hill is full of fire, 
because it is full of smoke. 
to fire, that is, they are not fire. : : 
Gangega observes that this definition too is defective as it 
: Inv c me 
middle term forms the counterpart of that non-existence whic 
abides in the locus of the non-existence of the entire major 
e.g. 
The hill is full of fire, 
because it is full of smoke. 
