Antarvyapti Interpreted in Jainism

Author(s): Atsushi Uno
Publisher: Z_Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_1_002105.pdf and Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_2

Page 10

'Antarvyāpti' Interpreted in Jainism
319
If one is forced to say, the valid hetu should be "being boy" and "being her baby." Thus bahirvyāpti is useless.
<RaA Rendering>
(in the beginning of the RaA is mentioned a verse, which is a compromise between the NyA (20) and the PNT (111.37). The main. cause of inferential knowledge is considered to be antarvyāpti, and the term "bahya-vyapti" is mentioned instead of "bahirvyāpti.)
antarvyāptih săddhya-saktau bāhyavyāpter varnar vandhyam eva antarvyāptih sāddhya-āśaktau bāhyavyāpter varnam vandhyam eva |!
When on the basis of antarvyāpti the establishment of probandum is possible, the mention of bāhyavyāpti is useless. When on the basis of antarvyāpti the establishment of probandum is impossible, the mention of bāhyavyāpti is useless.
(Like the SyR, the RaA mentions two examples.)
(1)
<pratijñā > "That my son is speaking outdoors” (mat-putro 'yam
bahir avasthito vakti)
<vyāpti> "Otherwise such voice is unintelligible." (anyathaivam
bhūta-svarāupapattih] In this case though bahirvyāpti does not exist, antarvyāpti is accepted as gamaka of inferential knowledge. (II) <pratijñā> "He (the unborn boy) is black.” (sa śyāmah)
<hetu> "Because of being her baby." (tad-putrarvat)
<drstänta > "Like her other boys." (itara-tat-putratvat)
In this case, however, even though bahirvyāpti exists, it is not regarded as the main cause (ghataka) of inferential knowledge. (Comment] The first example is the same as the second one of the Syr. The second example is almost the same as the third one of the SyR. In the first example, the description seems misleading. Bahirvyāpti (vyatireka-vyäpti) and heterogeneous example do exist, though they are not described obviously.
<Antarvyāpti and bahirvyāpti defined by PNT> PNT further describes two kinds of vyāpti (111.38, 39).