________________
On “ Upādhi”
Continued
By
HIDENORI KITAGAWA
The readers are expected to have read my preceding acticle of the same title in the Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Vol. XIV, No. 1.
· Now, if, as is explained, the function of the upādhi is that of the symptom which tells us the invalidity of the argument, it is preferable that its definition should be as generous as possible. For, the more generous the definition is, the easier will it be for us to find a suitable upādhi that satisfies the definition, and the invalidity of the argument may more easily be pointed out. In this connection, the statement of the Siddhāntamuktāvali is worth to note. Kārikā 138 of the Siddhāntamuktāvali reads as follows:
sādhyasya vyāpako yas tu hetor avyā pakas tathā / sa upādhir bhavet, tasya nişkarso 'yam pradarśyate / (Now, that which is a pervader of the sādhya (-dharma] and a non-pervader of the hetu as well is the upādhi;
its pith will be shown here.) Apparently upādhi is defined here. Since hetu is nothing but the sādhana-dharma, this definition is practically the same as the definition, so far dealt with, i.e.
sādhya-vyā pakatve sati sādhanavyāpakah upādhih (That
