________________
Paurandnrusātra
155
and if the paksa is ascertained, anumāna would no longer have any purpose to serve. So in order to establish or justify the usage of pakşadharma (as defining characteristic of hetu), the word paksa, though conventionally denoting the aggregate of attributesand-thing, has necessarily to be understood in a secondary sense as indicating or meaning the thing (alone), which is a part of the total denotation. Thus the pakşa is gauna (secondary), and that being so, the he tu also is gauna because it is its attribute. So anumāna, which is produced by a gauna cause, is also gauna, and being gauna it is not a pramāņa."'
In my opinion the above explanation does not make sense, and I will try to explain the sūtra differently. However, what follows should by no means be considered as a criticism of E. Solomon who simply explains Vādi Devasūri's interpretation of Purandara, and in so far her explanation is most accurate. I also think she is probably right in assuming that the above interpretation induced Bhatta Udbhata to give a new interpretation of the sūtra. I do not think, however, that Vādi's interpretation conveys the original meaning of the sūtra, for it simply makes no sense.
First note the exact words of the hetu : 'pramāṇasyāgaunatvāt'. If Purandara wanted to say what Vādi says he wanted to say, this would be a very oblique way of expressing himself--a gauņa argument indeed--for he could simply say pakşasyāgaunatvāt. But this in itself is not enough to discredit Vādi's interpretation; so let us take a closer look at the content of the argument.
According to Vādi, Purandara's argument is based on the fact that, when applied to inference, the word pakşa is used in a secondary or metaphorical meaning (upacāra). Now, the question that arises is : Is there something wrong in using a word, and more specifically the word paksa, in a secondary meaning ?
The Sanskrit texts provide a definite answer to this question: under certain conditions, there is nothing wrong with using the word paksa in its secondary meaning.
The use of the word paksa in its secondary meaning goes back to Dinnāga (PS, HII. 8)4, and at the beginning of the Hetubindu Dharmakirti enters into a rather detailed polemic against Iśvarasena in order to justify Dinnāga's position. By looking into this polemic we can see when the word may be used in its secondary meaning, and when not.
Isvarasena's objection is quite clear5 : prayojanābhāvād anupacārah. Thus the argument presupposes that one should not use a word in a metaphorical sense unless one has a reason or a purpose (prayojana) for doing so. And Dharmakirti's answer shows that he shares Isvarasena's presupposition, for it consists in showing that Dinnāga had good reasons for the employment of the word paksa in its secondary meaning. Therefore, if Purandara wanted to convince anybody of his argument, one would expect him to give some reason why the metaphorical use is not appropriate
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
