The Calcutta Review February 1953

The replof the Mimansakas to this question is that the method of agreement contributes much to arrive at the required induction that smoke is the invariable concomitant of fire but exclusive use of the method of difference to arrive at the said induction is not worth trying. [...] If the sentence ' he eats at night ' is the probandum and Devadatta who is flabby but does not take his meal during the day is the probans then the probans in question does not belong to the subject of inferenCe (the speaker of the sentence) but belongs to such a locus as contains the negation of the probandum and hence is not an invariable mark. [...] The injunction 'one who is desirous of the lusture arising from the holy study should offer Caru (rice boiled in milk) in honour of the sungod' is also incomplete since the meaning of the word 'cant' is ambiguous. [...] If they hold that the force of a cause is an effect of the cause itself then is -it an effect of the cause alone or of the cause combined with the conditions? [...] If this is the contention of the Mimansakas then they should admit that the intermediate process is perceptible but not transcendental since they do not infer the intermediate process of a cause from its effect but directly know the operation of the cause in and through the intermediate process before the appearance of its effect.