________________
Aptamīmāṁsā
There is obvious contradiction if non-dualism is established with the help of a middle term (hetu):
हेतोरद्वैतसिद्धिश्चेद् द्वैतं स्याद्धेतुसाध्ययोः ।
हेतुना चेद्विना सिद्धिद्वैतं वाङ्मात्रतो न किम् ॥२६॥ सामान्यार्थ - यदि कहा जाए कि अद्वैत की सिद्धि हेतु के द्वारा की जाती है तो हेतु (साधन) और साध्य के सद्भाव से द्वैत की सिद्धि का प्रसंग आता है। और यदि हेतु के बिना अद्वैत की सिद्धि की जाती है तो क्या वचनमात्र से द्वैत की भी सिद्धि नहीं हो सकेगी?
If we undertake to establish this doctrine of absolute nondualism (advaita-ekānta) with the help of the middle term (hetu) [also called reason (sādhana) or mark (linga)], there is bound to be duality because the middle term (hetu) will have a predicate - the major term (sādhya or lingī). If it be established without the help of the middle term (hetu) by mere speech, in that case, can the contrary view (absolute dualism) too not be established by mere speech?
The minor term, locus or abode (paksa) is that with which the reason or middle term (hetu) is connected, and whose connection with the major term (sādhya) is to be proved. The
minor term (paksa) is related to the major term (sādhya) through their common relation to the middle term (hetu). In a proposition (pratijnā) the subject is the minor term (paksa), and the predicate the major term (sādhya or lingi).
In an inference for the sake of others, the minor term (paksa), etc., must be explicitly set forth. The following is an inference for the sake of others:
1. This hill (minor term) is full of fire (major term). -
52
