Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1

SR No.: 522601
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur
Publication Year: 1971
Total Pages: 414
Language: English, Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin, & India
File Size: 9 MB

Page 107

96
VAISHALI INSTITUTE RESEARCH BULLETIN NO. I
symptoms of the inefficiency of the arguer. If the personal defects of the arguer be occasions of fallacies, there will be no end of the process because the number of personal defects is legion. It may be argued that whatever be the reason of such statements of deficient examples, they fail to carry full conviction. Siddharşi rejoins, if such personal drawbacks be taken into account as logical defects, the defects of speech as of a stammerer should be entitled to consideration.
We may observe that this contention of Siddharşi is more ingeneous than convincing. The defective examples are necessarily cases of fallacious reasons. If the probanses employed be correct and possessed of necessary concomitance, they would not be liable to censure. Moreover, an example is needed for the demonstration of the necessary concomitance as has been stated by Hemacandra : 'An example is the locus of the observation of necessary concomitance'. The defects of example are thus derived from fallacious reasons and they serve to bring home the lack of necessary concomitance for the correction of the erring arguer.
Now the fallacies of examples in respect of concomitance in difference are going to be treated in the next verse.
Text vaid harmyepátra drstāntadoşā nyāyavidíritaḥ / sādhyasadhanayugmanām anivștteśca samśayāt //
Translation "The fallacies of example based on dissimilarity (concomitance in difference) have been enunciated by experts on logic as consisting of the instances lacking in absence of the probandum, the probans and both and also when such absence is subject to doubt." ... (XXV)
Elucidation In negative concomitance an example is cited to show that the absence of the probandum involves the absence of the probans. If the example cited is fouud to lack or doubted to lack in the absence of the probandum, or the probans, or both it will be fallacious since it will fail to prove that the probans cited in the main argument is possessed of necessary concomitance with the probandum. As the examples given in the commentary are of controversial nature and not intelligible to the average student of logic who has not cultivated the different systems of philosophy we propose to give the treatment of this topic with the examples from Hemacandra's Pramanamimamsa. The commentator