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 11

320
Atsushi Uno
Jambū-jyoti
Invariable concomitance of the hetu (M) with the sādhya (P) existent in the very object which is considered paksa (S) is antarvyāpti. On the other hand, invariable concomitance existent elsewhere is bahirvyāpti. (paksikrta eva visaye sādhanasya sādhyena vyāptir antarvyāptih; anyatra tu bahirvyāptih)
[Comment] Vyāpti being synonymous with vyāpyatā, it is a nature or a relation possessed by a pervaded (vyāpya). Therefore I translated "hetu's vyāpti with sādhya" etc.
For example : (1) <pratijñā>
[<hetu> <vyāpti >
"Entity (vastu) is made up of many natures." (vastu anekāntātmakam) "Because it is sat.” (sattvāt) This is not expressed.] “Only when the entity is of many natures (sādhya), then sattva (hetu) is intelligible." (tathopapatti)
(II) <pratijñā» “This place has fire." (ayam deso'gnimān)
<hetu> "Because it has smoke." (dhūmavattvāt) <vyāpti > "Whatever possesses smoke has fire." (sa evam sa evam) <drstānta> "Like a kitchen" (yathā pākasthānam)
[Comment] These two examples show antarvyāpti and bahirvyāpti respectively.
Syllogism (1) is lacking in drstänta, because entity (vastu) is highest connotation being synonymous with existent (sat) in Jainism. The sadhya is <anekāntātmakatva> and the hetu is <sattva>, and the vyāpti holding between such two notions is nothing but antarvyāpti, residing in the paksa (= vastu) only and not elsewhere.
Syllogism (2) is equipped with three members : pratijñā, hetu, drstānta, and positive-vyāpti existent in the outer example (bahirdrstānta), i.e., kitchen is bahirvyāpti. <The case of PrM>
Antarvyāpti has much to do with drstānta. Hemacandra in PrM first defined drstänta in three sūtras, discussed it in his own commentary and concluded that it is by no means indispensable to inference, and eventually referred to antaryāpti.