________________
Āptamīmāmsā
sapakṣa)". Here smoke (hetu) exists in relation to the hill - pakṣa-dharmatva - and it also exists in relation to the kitchen - sapakṣa-sattva. Consider another example where the absence of the major term (sadhya) is established by the absence of the middle term (hetu): "This hill (minor term, locus or abode - pakṣa) has no fire (major term - sadhya) because it has no smoke (middle term or reason-sadhana or hetu), as in the lake (heterogeneous example - vipakṣa)". Here smoke (hetu) does not exist in relation to the lake (vipakṣa-vyāvṛtti).
62
According to Buddhist logicians, the true hetu should possess the following three characteristics:
i) it should be present in the pakṣa,
ii) it should also exist in the sapakṣa, and
iii) it should not be found in the vipakṣa.
The paksa has already been explained to mean the sadhya and its abode, the dharmi; but sapakṣa is the place where the sadhana and sädhya are known to abide in some already familiar instance, while vipakṣa embraces all other places where the very possibility of the existence of the sadhya is counter-indicated.
Illustration:
This hill (pakṣa) is full of fire, because it is full of smoke; Whatever is full of smoke is full of fire, as a kitchen
(sapakṣa);
Whatever is not full of fire is also not full of smoke, as a pond (vipakṣa).
Excerpted from:
Jain, Champat Rai (1916),
"Nyaya - The Science of Thought", p. 50.
