Tulsi Prajna 1977 04

SR No.: 524510
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Shreechand Rampuriya, Nathmal Tatia, Dayanand Bhargav
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1977
Total Pages: 198
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Tulsi Prajna, & India
File Size: 9 MB

Page 175

commentator that in the sphere of logic he did not try to evade the main issue under the shelter of the metaphysical doctrine of its own system, viz., Satkāryavāda, i.e. the effect is always present in its cause.
Vidyānanda (9th Cent. A.D.) the next jain logician, did not make any substantial contribution to the main problem as to whether inference is possible on the basis of cause-effect relationship but contributed indirectly by raising the number of varieties of hetus giving full importance to such varieties which are based on cause effect relationship in the positive as well as in the negative sensel. He also referred to some indirect cause effect relationship where one cause is related to another effect through the medium of an intermediatary cause. He could enumerate as many as sixteen varities under this sub-heading alone.
Vācaspati (9th Cent. A.D.) is not so much occupied in proving that cause can be inferred from the effect as he appears to be anxious to show that the classification of the Buddhists regarding the types of hetus is wrong. He has, in fact, tried to prove tl there is no relationship of cause and effect between the fire and the smoke because both of them are not in succession but simultaneous'. In fact, such was his anxiety not to accept cause effect relationship even where it was obvious that as an example of an inference of an effect from the cause he could find an illustration in a very abnormal case of a deaf infering the sound of the drum produced by the cause of the beating of the drum by his on hands. This type of example could hardly lead towards any clearer understanding of the problem:
In fact, there have been such advanced works as that of Udayana in the field of Nyāya, Sāṁkhyatattvakaumudi in the field of Samkhya and Pramāṇamīmāṁsă in the field of Jaina logic, yet they hardly add anything new pertaining to the problem with which we are concerned here and we would, therefore, like to make the following observations of our own at this stage regarding the cases of
1. Pramānapariksā. pp. 73-75. 2. Ibid., pp. 73-74. 3. न हि हेतुसत्ता कार्यकाला कार्योत्पादाङ्गम्, अपि तु तत्पूर्णकाला...... एवं घूमादप्यग्निः तत्पूर्वकाल एवानुमीयेत न तु वर्तमानकालः ।
—Tātparyaţikā on Nyāyasūtra, 1.1.5. 4. अपि च बधिरो मुरजमुखमभिहत्य स्वपाणिनाभिघातादेव शब्दकारणात् ___ तत्कार्य शब्दं निश्शङ्कमनुमिमीते।
Ibid.. 1.1.5.
तुलसी प्रज्ञा
169