298 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. {NS., XIV, 
Here smoke forms the counterpart of the non-existence of 
smoke which abides in the region of the non-existence of entire 
fire. 
According to Gangesa the definition is defective as it fails 
to explain the case of an exclusively affirmative inference. In 
diagram IT we find that there is no non-existence of the know- 
able which abides in the region of the non-existence of the 
nameable. : 
5. Invariable concomitance is the non-presence of the 
middle term in what is not the locus of the major term, ¢.9. 
The hill is full of fire, 
because it is full of smoke. 
Here smoke is not present in anything which is not the 
abode of fire. This definition too, according to Gangesa, is 
presence of the knowable in what is not included 1n the region 
of the nameable. 
feeasia afar | 
Definition of Invariable Concomitance given by Lion 
and Tiger. 
1. Invariable concomitance is the state in which the middle 
term has not a locus in which there is the non-co-presence OL 
the major term, e.g. 
The hill is full of fire, 
because it is full of smoke. 4 
Here Fire is always co-present with smoke in the locus . ea 
the oe It never occurs that in the locus of smoke there § os 
ne fire. 
2. Invariable concomitance is the state in which the ca Ss 
dle term has not a locus which is different from the locus 
the major term, eg. 
The hill is full of fire, 
because it is full of smoke. 
locus of smoke is never different from that of fire, thet 
‘ cu 
Contrarily to this we find that the middle term has 0 
locus which 1s not the locus of the major term. For sie’ oe 
Htehe on a hill has a locus which is not the locus of fire?® 
itchen. ° 
