Implications Of Buddhist Jaina Dispute Over Fallacious Example In Nyaya Bindu And Nyayavatara Vivrti

SR No.: 269215
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz
Total Pages: 18
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 3 MB

Page 13

PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
impermanent. And the use of [the word] 'everything' has the purpose of circumcription (reference): 'everything is impermanent', [viz.] 'there is nothing that is not impermanent".
Cf. PVSV 3.28: tatha hi yat krtakam tad anityam ity ukte 'anarthântara-bhave vyaktam ay asya svabhavas...
16 NB 3.22:arya-heloh prayogaḥ - yatra dhumas tatrágniḥ, yatha mahānasâdau. asti céha dham.
17 Cf. NB 2.1 karyam yathagnir atra dhamad iti; see also PVSV 3.28: tatha yatra dhumas tarignir iti ukte käryam dhamo dahanasya.
18 PVSV 334 yeşam upalambhe tal-laksanam anupalabdham yad upalabhyate. tatráikább 'pi nôpalabhyate. tat tasya karyam tac ca dhamo 'sti.
19 NP 3.3.1 (-NP (1) 5.19-6.14):
tatra sadhayena tavad drstantabhasaḥ pañca-prakaraḥ, tad yatha: [1] sadhanadharmasidah, [2] sadhya-dharmasiddhaḥ, [3] ubhaya-dharmasiddhaḥ, [4] ananayak [5] viparitanvayas ceti // tatra [1] sadhana-dharmasiddho yatha: nityah Sabdo miravat paramanuvat, yad amartam tan nityaṁ drstam yatha paramánuh. paramana sadhyam nityarvam asti sadhana-dharmo 'mûrtatvaṁ nästi mūrtatvāt paraman iti ..., NP 3.3.2: vaidharmyenapi dṛṣṭantabhasaḥ pañca-prakāraḥ, tad yatha: [1] sadhyavyävrttaḥ, [2] sadhanavyavṛtaḥ, [3] ubhayavyavṛttah, [4] avy atirekah, [5] viparita-vyatirekaś céti Il tatra [1] sädkyävyävṛtto yatha: nityaḥ sabdo martatva paramanuvat, yad anityam tan martam drstam yatha paramānuḥ. paramanor ki sadhana-dharmo 'murtatvaṁ vyāvṛttaṁ mūrtatvāt paramāņūnām iti. sadhya-dharmo nityarvam na vyavṛttam nityarvat paramananamiti //
20 NB 3.124 [S1] sadhya-vikala - nityaḥ śabdo 'martatvät, karmavat, and NB 3.129: [VI] sadryatirekin nityaḥ sabdo 'martatvät, paramánuvat. For details see the tables below and the respective note 24.
21 Another way of looking at the typology of fallacious example could be the following table, where x is a variable (sadhya, sadhana, and the relation between them both, that is, anvaya sad vyatireka) and is a function of x.
x-vikala
x-avyatirel
sadhya- sadhana- sadhyasadhana-4 [S3] [V3] [S6] [V6]
[SI] [S2] [VI] [V2] sandigdha-s-dharma [S4] [SS] sandigdhos-vyatireka [V4] [VS]
a-x
apradaritie-x viparita-x
-anvaya -vyatireka
142
[S7]
[S8]
[59]
[V7]
[V8]
[V9]
22 This (ragaman ayam vakrṛtvad) is how the thesis and the logical reason should be reconstructed, first, in view of the explication of the positive concomitance in NB 3.126 itself (vatha yo vakta sa ragadimän), and secondly in view of the NBT ad loc yo vaktes waktṛivam anadya sa ragadimän iti ragadimattvam vihitam, wherein the gerund andya of anuvad is used in its conventional meaning of 'having called something to mind (as well known]' and the past passive participle vihita, a derivative of the verb virda, occurs in its well attested meaning "introduced as something new; taught as something yet unknown (sc. to be proved). Also DhPr ad loc. (vaktṛtvasya heto ragadimate sadhye pratiniyamaḥ pratiniyatatvam uktam iti šeşaḥ) expresses plainly the logical reason (hetu: vaktṛtva) and the probandum (sadhya: ragadimattva). The significance of the corresponding section of NAV that offers the formulation of the proof formula in extenso and tallies with our reconstructed version, should not be underestimated.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE BUDDHIST-JAINA DISPUTE
23 The formulation of the thesis and the logical reason (anityaḥ sabdaḥ, kṛtakatvāt...) alongside with the example (... ghatavar) are, obviously, to be supplied from the preceding aphorism NB 3.126. The statement yad anityam tat krtakam is the formulation of the invariable concomitance (anvaya) referring to the proof formula in NB 3.126, which is incomplete, inasmuch as it lacks its explicit statement, being the fallacy of anavayava type. Cf. also NBT ad loc: yad anityam ity anityatvam anadya tat kṛtakam iti krtakatvam vihitam. This proof formula bears resemblance (barring the lack of nega tion in the thesis of sadhana-dharmasiddha type of fallacious example, which is to be supplied further on in the viparitanvaya type) to the one found in NP 3.3.1 (-NP (1) 5.19-6.14): tatra sadharmyena tavad distantabhasaḥ pañca-prakaraḥ, tad yatha:...[1] sadhana-dharmasiddho yatha: nityaḥ śabdo 'martatvāt paramanvat.... [5] vipartianvayo yatha: yat kṛtakam tad anityam drstam iti vaktavye yad anityah tad kṛtakam drstam iti braviti // (cf. n. 19). The reconstruction is independently confirmed by the reading found in the corresponding section of NAT.
24 The thesis and the logical reason (nityaḥ śabdo 'murtatvät) here as well as in the two following cases are to be supplied from the parallel aphorism of NB 3.124. Besides, the reconstruction is directly confirmed by NBT: nityatve šabdasya sadhye heav amartatve paramanu-vaidharmya-dṛṣṭantaḥ sadhyavyatirekt.
25 Cf. n. 24.
26 Cf. D. 24.
27 The formulation of the thesis and the logical reason (anityaḥ sabdaḥ, kṛtakarvar...) alongside with the example (...akasavar) are, beyond doubt, to be supplied from the preceding aphorism: NB 3.134 states incomplete reasoning lacking the explicit formulation of the negative concomitance which NB 3.135 supplies, though in the reversed order. The proof formula formed correctly would run as follows: anityaḥ sabdaḥ, kṛtakatvat, yad akytakam tan nityam bhavati, akasavat. This proof formula - with the correct formulation of the negative concomitance-occurs in NP 2.2 (=NP (2) 2.2=NP (1) 1.11 13): tad yatha: anitye sabde sadhye ghatadir anityaḥ sapakṣaḥ Il vipakso yatra sadhyam nästi. yan nityam tad aktakan drstam yathākajam iti. The reconstruction is independently confirmed by the reading found in the corresponding section of NAT. Similarly to [S9]. also this proof formula bears certain resemblance (barring the lack of negation in the predicate anitya) to the one found in NP 3.3.2 (=NP (1) 6.14 7.8): vaidharmyeṇapi dryantabhasaḥ pañca-prakāraḥ, tad yatha: ...[1] sadhyavyavyo yatha: nityah labda 'miratuar paramánuvat...[5] viparita-vyatireko yatha: yad anityam tan mitam dratam iti vaktavye yan mürtam tad anityam drstam iti braviti // (cf. n. 19). 28 NAV 25.2 (p. 414), vide infra n. 35.
29 On the authorship of NA see Balcerowicz (2001b).
30 NA 25:
vaidharmyeṇātra dṛṣțânta-dosa nyaya-vid-Irish/ sadhya-sadhana-yugmänăm anivṛties ca samsayat //
Defects of the example, here based on dissimilarity, have been proclaimed by the experts in logic [to arise] from non-exclusion of the probandum, of the probans and of their combination and from the [liability to] suspicion [regarding their presence].
31 One would naturally read anivriteḥ and samsayat as dependent on the compound sadhya-sadhana-yugmanam. Theoretically speaking, however, the latter could be taken separately. NA 25 is not the only aphorism that is not conclusive. For instance NA 8:
drstestävyähatad väkyä paramarthabhidhayinaḥ tattva-grähitayotpannam manam sabdam praktrtitam //
The cognitive criterion - arisen as grasping reality due to a [momentous] sentence, which is accepted as what is experienced, and which is not
143