Comparative Study of Indian Science

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

Page 67

59
(Nigamana). A Mimansaka syllogism therefore is sometimes similar in form to the three-limbed syllogism of the Aristotelian and the modern European school.
The thinkers of the other orthodox schools of Indian philosophy call Anumana Panchavayava or five-limbed. (Vide 27 Parapakshanirjayadhyaya, Sankhya-Sutras: 1. 1. 32, 39, Nyaya-Sutras etc.) Besides Pratijna, Hetu and Dristanta, they would have a fourth proposition, stating the Upanaya or Application of the Hetu to the Paksha and a concluding judgment, embodying the conclusion. The syllogism according to them is as follows. This Hill is Firy; Because it has Smoke; All that has Smoke is Firy like a Kitchen and whatever is not Firy has no Smoke like a Lake; Now this Hill has Smoke; Therefore, this Hill is Firy.
The Jaina logicians contend that a syllogism should always be two-limbed. Dristanta, Upanaya and Nigamana are superfluous. These do not give us the Vyapti which is already got through the TarkaPramana or Induction. An intelligent man does not require these propositions to remind him of the Vyapti. The Paksha and the Hetu are sufficient to convince him of the truth. (Vide Pramana-naya-tattvalokalamkara, 28-40, 3rd, chapter.) As a matter of fact, some of the Buddhist logicians admit that in the case of an intelligent person, Dristanta is reduntant.