Comparative Study of Indian Science

Author(s): Harisatya Bhattacharya
Publisher: C S Mallinath

Page 65

statement indicating the Paksha is not a necessary limb in an Anumana as one would feel no difficully in drawing the proper conclusion if he be given the proper premises.
The Jaina logicians hold on the contrary that the Minor Term is as essential to Anumana as the Mark itself. Anumana is not simply the Knowledge of the presence of the unobserved thing but the knowledge of its presence in or in relation to an observed thing. Not the knowledge of Fire but that of its presence in the Hill is the Anumana. Hence the Minor Term is essential to Anumana. The utility or the use of the Minor Term consists in this that it clears up all ambiguities regarding the matter of conclusion. The Jaina logician candidly admits after all, that if the audience is intelligent enough, the explicit statement of the Paksha is not necessary. As Prabhachandra says, "If the Paksha is not stated, some dull persons may not understand the real conclusion. The omission of the Paksha is recommended, however, in cases where the real conclusion is understood even without it,"
The Jaina school maintains that the statement of the Paksha and the statement of the Hetu (Pratijna and Hetu) are the only two limbs in an Anumana. An Anumana according to the Jaina School is of the form: This Hill is Firy; Because it is full of Smoke. The