The strainer ( cālanī ) tests the strength of a definition of a particular kind. Suppose the definition D is stated in terms of an absence, and x is a definiendum of D . The strainer collects each x -token or x -individual that dissatisfies D in a specific case. Then, all the x -individuals put together would be equivalent to the type x . Hence—one would be forced to conclude that—in a sense, x dissatisfies D . This is a case of under-application of D , since, despite being a definiendum of D , x dissatisfies D . Therefore, D would be too narrow. Similarly, the strainer may detect over-application too. By using the strainer, Raghunātha Śiromaṇi demonstrated that Gaṅgeśa’s conclusive definition of pervasion ( vyāpti ) had a defect, and redefined pervasion. The strainer test is based on intuitive principles. It may disqualify a definition that has an absence in its definiens. Therefore, strainer-proofing becomes an important consideration that must be borne in mind every time we formulate such a definition.

中文翻译：

---

通过逻辑学家的过滤器：一种 Nyāya 技巧

过滤器 ( cālanī ) 测试特定类型定义的强度。假设定义 D 是根据不存在来表述的，并且 x 是 D 的被定义项。过滤器收集在特定情况下不满足 D 的每个 x -token 或 x -individual。那么，所有 x 个体放在一起将等同于类型 x 。因此——人们将被迫得出结论——在某种意义上，x 不满足 D。这是 D 应用不足的情况，因为尽管 x 是 D 的定义，但 x 不满足 D 。因此，D 会太窄。类似地，过滤器也可能检测到过度应用。通过使用过滤器，Raghunātha Śiromaṇi 证明了 Gaṅgeśa 对渗透（vyāpti）的结论性定义有缺陷，并重新定义了渗透。过滤器测试基于直观原理。它可能会取消在其定义项中缺失的定义的资格。因此，在我们每次制定这样的定义时，过滤器防护成为必须牢记的重要考虑因素。