________________
Dignāga on trairūpya Reconsidered: A Reply to Prof. Oetke 259 complete universe of discourse (minus pakșa, i.e. the topic under discussion) or what Richard Hayes once called 'induction domain ’. 18)
In PS III Dignāga defines vipakșa simply as 'absence of sapakşa'. If we follow the above-mentioned definition of sapakṣa in PSIII, it should mean 'absence of any object which has the property to be proven', which in the final analysis can be understood as the domain of absence of the property to be proven as in NMukh.
In both NMukh and PS III Dignāga emphasizes that vipakșa is neither what is different from sapaksa nor what is incompatible with sapakṣa and that it is 'absence' (abhāva) of sapaksa. I understand that by restricting the meaning of vipakṣa in such a way, Dignāga tried to establish the complemenatry relationship between sapakșa and vipakșa as mentioned above."
Now let us go back to PS II. 5cd: anumeye 'tha tattulye sadbhāvo nāsitāsati. As the logical subject of asati we have two alternatives, viz. 'anumeya' and 'tattulya'. If we take the first alternative, the third characteritic means "absence (of the inferential mark] in the absence (asati) [of the property to be inferred (anumeya)]”, which corresponds to the NMukh definition of vipakșa (i.e.,.absence of the property to be proven). If we take the second alternative, then the phrase means "absence [of the inferential mark] in the absence (of what is similar to the object of inference (tattulya)], which corresponds to the PS III definition of vipaksa (absence of sapakşa).”
Just like Oetke I prefer the first alternative because it fits well with the alternative meanings of the word anumeya as I have explained above.20) Jinendrabuddhi, however, supports the second alternative.21) In any case, I believe that there is no fundamental difference in the interpretation of the trairūpya in either alterative.
The more I read Oetke's examinations of the trairūpya formulae, the more I am inclined to admire his thorough logical thinking. On the other hand, perhaps the problem with his approach is that he tends to rely on a few selected passages of the relevant Indian texts which he analyses minutely
