________________
Dignaga on trairupya Reconsidered: A Reply to Prof. Oetke
In PS-Vṛtti II. Sed Dignaga inserts the restrictive particle eva at least in the anvaya formula: tat (=anumeya)-tulye eva [lingasya] sadbhavaḥ, which can be reformulated as: sädhyadharma-bhave eva lingasya sadbhavaḥ. As a result of the insertion of eva the anvaya formula no more represents the inductive process; it expresses the relation between the domain of linga and that of the property to be proven (sadhyadharma), namely, the former is restricted by the latter; in other words, the former is pervaded (vyāpta) by the latter. As far as I can see, Dignaga insisted on inserting the particle eva in order to express the relation of pervasion (vyapti) between linga and sadhyadharma which he considered to be the foundation of any valid inference or reasoning.
The fact that he does not employ the word vyāpti in this particular context may suggest that he is still in the process of struggling toward a new terminology for his theory of logical proof. Dignaga was well acquainted with the Indian Grammatical tradition. He borrowed from them not only the method of anvaya and vyatireka in order to determine a valid reason but also the notion of 'restriction' (avadhāraṇa / niyama) by the particle eva in order to express the proper relation between the valid reason and its object, in short, 'pervasion'.
263
Although Dignaga does not mention the vyatireka formula with eva in PS-Vṛtti II. Scd, NMukh and the corresponding passages of PS-Vrtti quoted at the beginning of this paper seem to indicate that he intended to insert the eva-restriction in the vyatireka formula, too. Thus we can reformulate it as: asati [lingasya] nästità eva or sadhyadharma-abhave lingasya nästită eva. In this formulation, the domain of absence of the property to be proven is restricted by that of absence of linga, which is logically equivalent to the anvaya formula with eva. Dignaga seems to be aware of such a logical equivalence and tries to solve problems related to it in PS-Vrtti IV, which I shall deal with in a future paper. Dharmakirti calls anvaya and vyatireka with eva 'niyamavat' (restricted) and apparently regards them as logically equivaHe tries to justify the necessity of both anvaya and vyatireka by
