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 12

Antarvyāpti' Interpreted in Jainism
321
"Drstānta is not the cause (anga) of inference" (1.1.18).
"Because inferential knowledge is established by the probans (sādhana) exclusively" (1.11.19). For inferential knowledge is produced from the cause (sādhana; hetu) which lacks drstānta and is inseparable from probandum (sådhya). So drstānta is by no means the cause of inference. For, drstānta is mentioned for the purpose of (1) getting the knowledge of the probandum, or (2) getting the knowledge of the vyāpti, or (3) making the opponent remember the vyāpti ? It is not the case (1), because the establishment of the probandum is secured by the above-mentioned probans (hetu) exclusively. And it is not the case (2), because the knowledge of the vyāpti is produced from the denial (exclusion) of the hetu in the heterogeneous example (vipaksa; vyatireka; what has not the probandum). And any drstānta is individual. How can individual drstānta totally communicate us the general vyāpti ? For other cases of vyāpti, another vyāpti is to be sought. Since that drstānta is also individual in nature, the decision of the whole is impossible, because drstānta being sought one by one may lead to regressus ad infinitum. And it is not the case (3). For those who are familiar with the vyāpti, the vyapti is to be remembered at the sight of the probans (hetu). For those who are ignorant with the vyāpti, the vyāpti cannot be remembered even at the sight of drstānta. For remembrance presupposes previous knowledge (fire) smoke : -fire )-smoke).
"Drstānta is the basis on which to show the opponent the vyāpti" (1.1.20)
[Question) If the drstānta is not the cause of the inferenial knowledge, why do you dare to give it a definiton ?
(Answer) For in order to satisfy the opponent's wish in the inference for others, exceptional drstānta will be allowed. And even in the field of inference for oneself, the definiton of drstänta is not entirely inappropriate in view of the fact that there may be a person who is helped to arrive at the knowledge of antarvyāpti from the observation of bahirvyāpti found in an example.
[Comment) it is the NS that showed the general definion of drstānta. However, the drtānta of later product in other schools being quite different in nature, is necessarily connected with the vyāpti. The definition of drstānta