Dignaga On Trairupya Reconsidered

Author(s): Shoryu Katsura
Publisher: Shoryu Katsura

Page 9

Dignāga on trairüpya Reconsidered: A Reply to Prof. Oetke
249
PS-Vịtti ad PS V. 34: śabdasyānvayavyatirekāv arthābhidhāne dvāram, tau ca tulyātulyayor vrttyavrtti / “Association / continued presence (anvaya) and dissociation / continued absence (vyatireka) are the two ways that a word expresses its object / meaning. They consist respectively in applying to what is similar (tulye vșttih) and in not applying to what is dissimilar (atulye 'urttiḥ)."9)
For instance, the word 'cow' is applied to those animals which resemble each other in sharing some common features, viz. a dewlap and others, but it is not applied to those which do not share such features. In the above passage anvaya and vyatireka are formulated in the following manner:
(4) anvaya=tulye (sabdasya] vịttiḥ / (5) vyatireka=atulye [śabdasya] avrttiḥ /
If we compare them with the above formulae (2) (3), we cannot but see a close resemblance in their formulations. Thus it is safe to assume that the second and the third characteristics of a valid inferential mark can be named anvaya and vyatireka respectively. As a matter of fact it is not too difficult to see the reason behind such a correspondence, if we take into consideration Dignāga's fundamental doctrine that a verbal cognition (śābda, discussed in PS V) is only a kind of inference (anumăna discussed in PS II) and that a word (sabda) functions exactly in the same way as an inferential mark (linga), namely, by means of 'exclusion of others' (anyāpoha / anyavyāvștti / anyavyavccheda), in the realm of universals.
Now what are the roles of anvaya and vyatireka? Here I would like to refer to Geroge Cardona's thoery expressed in his article “On Reasoning from Anvaya and Vyatireka in Early Advaita.”10)
Indian thinkers have used a mode of reasoning that involves the related presence (anvaya 'continued presence ') and absence (vyatireka) of entities as follows: (1) a. When X occurs, Y occurs.