________________
170
D. D. Daye
or the improper formulation of which necessitates the legitimate charge of asserting a fallacious PA.
The fifth fallacy (3.3.1.5) of concordance (drstāntābhāsa sādharmyanena) also illustrates the antecedent/consequent relation of the conditional described in the preceding sentences. Again, rules of fallaciousness are normative; hence the conditional form of drstânta' is the implicit expression of a normative rule, as was the rule stating the fallaciousness concerning the omission as the improper form of the conditional drstānta? (3.3.1.4); the warrant states the concomitance as a generic relation, a law. My translation of "warrant" conveys its normative rule-like metalogical function; "example" or "exemplification" do not convey this normative function of drstānta.
Thus I have established two bases for normative rules with the drstanta fallacies (3.3.1.4, 5), its absence and improper form. Does "warrant" better express these normative factors than “example" or "exemplification" ? I think it clearly does. Both "example" and "exemplification” are usually taken as purely descriptive terms, whereas "warrant” explicitly conveys the metalogical normative function of dřstā ata'. That is, the function of drstāntal is to serve as an explicit license or authorization rule, the appeal to which not only reminds the recipient ( psychologically ) of the concomitance of justifier (hetu) and thesis property (sādhya-dharma), but the dsstāntal serves as the basis of a universally quantified law utilized as a normative standard; it is a rule which authorizes and thus justifies the cɔncomitance (vyāpti) of the alleged concomitant properties of thesis-property and the justifier (pakşa’=sādhya).
This specific normative function of the rule in drstāntal occurs at the metalogical level; additionally, dřstāntal as a metalogical rule instansitates the general tendency in early Buddhist nyāya (and of course, in Jaina and ästika darśanas) to develop greater degrees of such general metalogical qualities as precision, clirity, formalism, freedom from error and formal explicitness. These metalògical qualities are repeatedly exhibited in nyāya texts in epistemology, ontology and in formal logic.
Other instances of these qualities in the Buddhist PA are found in the development of the explicit metalogical content-free "wheel of justifier" (Hetu-cakra), the explicit metalogical rule of the three characteristics of the justifier "(trirūpahetu”), the generation of such explicit metalogical terms as sādhya, sādhana, višesa, anumeya, prameya, the generalized property/possessor descriptive relation (dharma-dharmin), and the whole varigated metalogical theory of error (ābhāsa). The latter theory of error is clearly normative and constitutes a rich fund of implicit metalogical rules and illustrations not all of which have been made explicit in the few explicit metalogical rules such as the three characteristics of the justifier (trirūpahetu) or in the few non-fallacious PA models.
The paucity of non-fallacious models and the varigated complexity of the fallacies (abhāsa) is necessary, for while it is easy to give an example of how a good
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
