Jambu Jyoti

SR No.: 006503
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Kasturbhai Lalbhai Smarak Nidhi Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2004
Total Pages: 448
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, & Religion
File Size: 21 MB

Page 329

318
Atsushi Uno
Jambū-jyoti
When by only using such either <tathopapatti> (positive vyāpti) or <anyathā-nupapatti > (negative vyāpti), sharp-minded (vyutpanna-mati) opponent can establish probandum (inference). (III) <pratijñā> “This woman's unborn baby is a boy.” (etasyāḥ strio
garbhātyam pumān) <hetu> "because of being her baby." (etad-apatyatvāt) <drstānta> "Like other babies who are known as boys."
(prasiddha-pumstvetatarāpatyavat)
For in these examples, even if in the presence of bahirvyāpti antarvyāpti is not obtainable, probans (hetu) is not considered to be the main cause (gamaka) of the probandum (inferential knowledge).
In the third example, "saty-eva pusstve etat-apatyatvāt" should be valid probans (hetu). So, such valid antarvyāpti is doubted. Bahirvyāpti produced from such doubt, though determined, cannot produce anything (useless).
[Comment] I would like to test three examples one by one. Syllogisms mentioned in the first two examples are right. In the first example, hetu "smoke” is here omitted. The vyāpti <tathopapatti> being reducible to the form <hetu sādhya> is antarvyāpti, residing in the paksa (here; mountain?). Here antarvyāpti being taken as principal, instructor (vādin) didn't dare to mention drstänta. Since the hetu (probans) is gamaka of inference, bahirvyāpti is useless so far as the form is concerned. It is a good example to show how antarvyāpti or bahirvyāpti functions in accordance with the absence of the presence of drstānta, in relation to two syllogisms having two members in common.
In the second example, vyāpti being shown in the form <~sādhya > ~hetu> is <anyathānupapatti> (negative vyāpti). <~hetu> is "otherwise unintelligibility of such voice" (anyathā evambhūta-svarānupapatti), and <~sādhya> is "if he is not speaking outdoors" (bahir-vacanābhāva). Here any heterogeneous example is purposely neglected, and accordingly bahirvyāpti is not mentioned. Thus antarvyāpti existing in the paksa is functioning, the hetu is gamaka of inference.
In the third example, the hetu is apparently “asiddha-hetu” as well as "sopādhika-hetu”, and this hetu is not the cause (ghațaka) of inference.