Parikshamukham

SR No.: 004085
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Saratchandra Ghoshal
Publisher: ZZZ Unknown
Publication Year: 1940
Total Pages: 362
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 7 MB

Page 158

102
The Sacred Books of the Jainas साध्यधर्मिणि साधनधर्माववोधनाय पक्षधर्मोपसंहारवत् ॥ ३५॥
35. Sādhyadharmiņi sādhanadharmāvavodhanāya pakşadharmopasamhāravat. को वा त्रिधा हेतुमुक्त्वा समर्थयमानो न पक्षयति ॥ ३६॥
36. Ko vā tridhā hetumuktvā samarthayamāno na pakşayati.
34. The Pakşa is used though it is understood (from Pratyakşa ) to dispel doubts regarding the abode of Sādhya when it is a Dharma.
35. As for example, Upanaya is used to explain the Dharma of Sadhana (the middle term, sign or mark) in the Dharmi containing Sādhya.
36. Is there anyone who does not use a Paksa to substantiate after mentioning the three kinds of Hetu ?
Commentary It may be urged that in inference, there is no necessity of a Pakşa. For in the case of inference of fire in a mountain by seeing smoke, the mountain (Pakşa ) is established by Pratyakşa. So it is not necessary to establish it again by inference (Anumāna ). It is redundant to establish by inference, what we get by Pratyakşa.
In answer to this, it is urged, that mention of Paksa is necessary to localize the Sādhya. Smoke may be in the mountain or in kitchens or in other places. To remove doubts as to where the smoke exists, the use of Pakṣa is necessary. Excluding the Paksa, we will only get a mention of the abstract relationship between smoke and fire. It may in such a case reduce Anumāna to Tarka e. g. 'where is this fire which is indicated by smoke ?' Or it may lead to an absurd inference e. g. existence of fire in a lake.
"Some philosophers hold that the minor term ( Pakşa ) is not an essential part of an inference. But this view according to the Jainas, is untenable, it being absolutely necessary to state the minor term ( Pakşa ) in the inference"."
1. Dr. Satischandra Vidyābhūşan : Nyāyāvatāra. p. 15