Comparative Study of Indian Science

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

Page 82

74
does not recognise the three modes of 'doubtful' (Sandhigdha) and the mode of 'unshown relation' (Apradarsita). Dharmakirti, however, recognised all the nine modes of the Dristantabhasa, given above. As to the classification of the Hetvabhasa, it would be seen that both Dignaga and Dharmakirti recognise its three broad sub-classes as described by the Jainas, viz., 1. Unproved. 2. Uncertain or doubtful. 3. Opposed or contradictory. That these modes of the Hetvabhasa were recognised by a section of the early orthodox logicians also will be apparent from the following utterance of Sankara Misra, the Vaiseshika thinker,"Kasyapa declared the fallacy of the mark to be of three kinds, namely, 1. The oppossed. 2. The unproved and 3. The doubtful." In 3. 1. 15, the Vaiseshika-Sutra, Kanada subscribes to the same view. But Gautama in his Nyaya-sutras (Vide 1. 2. 45) explicitly laid down five modes of the Middle Term fallacy. These are 1. The Savyabhichara. This is the same as the Doubtful. 2. The Virudda-or the Contradictory. 3. The Prakaranasama. This fallacy arises where the reason is such that an argument similar to it would lead to an opposite conclusion. 4. The Sadhyasama. This fallacy is the same as the Asiddha or unproved. 5. The Kalatyayapadishta. This fallacy refers to a Hetu which is contradicted
*