________________
ON THE TRANSLATION OF THE BASIC NYAYA TERMS : PAKSA, HETU AND DRSTĀNTA
D. D. Daye
A discussion of the problems of the translation of PA terms and AngloEuropean logical terms is always in order, for to translate the vocabulary of the former into the vocabulary of the latter is to presuppose some implicit theories of and assumptions about logic. In this light, I shall consider the three widely used Sanskrit PA terms, pakşa, hetu and drstānta.
Thesis (paksa') : this word is used interchangeably with pratijña, e. g., as in pratijñādosa, 'faults of the thesis statement. The word 'paksa' has been used in three senses; paksal is the statement of the thesis or conclusion of the PA schema, i. e., the whole statement "Sound ( sabda ) is impermanent (anitya ) 2, 2.1, 2.3-4, 3.1 ); paksa refers to property ( dharma ) of the thesis (pakşa') which is extensionally equivalent to the sādhya (the property-dharma-to-be-justified, 2.2, 2.4, 3.2.2 (5), 3.2.2 (4), e.2.2 (5); paksa has one occurrence in the NP ( 2.1. (1)) where it has been used to refer to the dharmin (“locus/property-possesser") of the dharma "property of the sādhya (“property-to-be justified" ) which is held to be concomitant with the sādhana dharma ("justifier-property,” (hetu?) of the justification ascription (hetul ) (2.2) :
Both words, "hetul.2" (below) and “paksa 1.2.3", have been much equivocated upon in this early period; sometimes a property was meant, paksaa; other times the whole proposition (or ascription ) paksal has been referred to by this word. The translation 'conclusion" for pakşal may suggest that "pakşa; is the sequential end of a true deductive or inductive inference-schema. I would hold that the PA is closer to a formalistic deductive explanation, rather than a clear deductive inference; hence the less restrictive “thesis" seems more appropriate for paksa. The awkwardness of translating paksa may be lessened by indicating the meaning of the paksadharmin in "thesis-locus." Other well-worn words of twentieth century nyāya studies, hardly to be called "standard," merely common, such as “subject ( and ) predicate", "probans" or, “minor terms", are misleading. First, the logician's use of the former two terms is significantly different from a grammarian's use; second, their metalogical assumptions are simply out of date.
"Justification” (hetu ) also exhibits an equivocation; hetu? is the whole ascription because of its being a ) causally generated thing (kştakatvāt )"; the usual transformation of the ascription into a statement is another etic but implicit transformation rule sometimes ignored by nyāya scholars. I hold that "justification" is a better translation of hetul; hetul is the ascriptive "statement" which indicates the
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
