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 4

'Antarvyāpti' Interpreted in Jainism
313
There is almost no material referring to the function of drstänta, but it is used as the third member, convincing the [dull-minded] opponent of the locus of vyāpti which comes from the preceding two members. The ambiguous character of the drstānta is originally derived from other reasons, which will be referred to later.
However, is the drstänta an indispensable member to the opponent of slow understanding in the inference for others ? I shall show some instances of establishing the probandum (inferential knowledge) even without the help of drstānta. (1) In the three-membered syllogism of Western logic, the major premise
(equivalent to vyāpti; M - P) and the minor premise (roughly equivalent to pakşadharmatā; S - M) are necessary for acquiring the conclusion (inferential knowledge; S. P), dispensing with any example.
(3)
(2) In the case of Indian logic, later Buddhism, the Mimāṁsaka, and
the Śänkara-Vedānta accept vyāpti (hetu sādhya) and paksadharmată (hetu + paksa) only for acquiring inferential knowledge, omitting drstāna. [The antecedent here is meant to occur in the consequent.] The Nyaya-Vaiśesika accepts parāmarśa by combining the abovementioned two elements into one. That is, vyāpti-viśistapaksadharmatā-jñānam (the knowledge of paksadharmatā possessed of vyāpti).
As has been shown above, to accept the existence of the vyāpti in the antaḥ (paksa) exclusively is antarvyāpti, without approving of the function of bahiḥ and bahirvyāpti as the main cause (gamaka) of inferential knowledge.
<drstānta>
Drstānta (or udaharana), the third member of the syllogism, was originally set forth in the Nyāyasutra (abbr. NS) and the Nyāyabhāsya (abbr. NBh), and was quite different in nature from what generally has been understood in later schools of logic.