________________
190 Madhva Logic
[CH. Mathurānātha, in explaining the function of tarka in the formation of the notion of concomitance (vyāpti), says that, even when through noticing the existence of smoke in all known cases of fire and the absence of smoke in all those places where there is no fire, one decides that smoke is produced by fire or not, it is there that tarka helps to remove all legitimate doubts. As Gangesa shows, such a tarka would proceed thus: Either smoke is produced by fire or it is not produced there. So, if smoke is produced neither by fire nor by not-fire, it is not produced at all. If, however, there are the doubts whether smoke is from not-fire, or whether it can sometimes be where there is no fire, or whether it is produced without any cause (ahetuka), then none of us can have the notion of inseparable existence of fire in all cases of smoke so as to lead us to action (sarvatva sva-kriyā-vyāghātaḥ)”. A course of thought such as is called tarka is helpful to the formation of the notion of concomitance only when a large number of positive and negative cases has been actually perceived and a provisional certainty has been reached. Even when the provisional certainty is reached, so long as the mind is not cleared by the above tarka the series of doubts (sambaya-dhārā) might continue to rise. It cannot be urged, says Gangeća, that, even when by the above method the notion of concomitance has been formed, there might still arise doubts whether fire might not be the cause of smoke or whether smoke might be without any cause; for, had it been so, you would not always (niyata) make fire when you wanted smoke, or eat when you wanted to satisfy your hunger, or use words to carry your ideas to
bhinnah syāt, (iii) ayam ghato yady etad-ghata-tyttih syāt, tathātvena upalabhyeta. Example of anyonyāśraya in jñapti: ayam ghato yady etad-ghata-jñāna-janyajñāna-visayah syāt etad-ghata-bhinnah syāt. Example of cakraka in utpatti: ghatoyam yady etad-ghata-janya-janya-janyaḥ syāt tadā etad-ghata-janyajanya-bhinnam syāt. Mādhava, in his Sarva-darśana-samgraha, speaking of older Nyāya tradition, adds seven others, vyāghāta (contradiction), pratibandhikalpanā (irrelevant thesis), lāghava (minimum postulation), gaurava (too much postulation), utsarga (general rule), apavāda (exception), vaijātya (classdifference). But Viśvanātha, whose list of these varies somewhat from the above, as he drops vyāghāta and has prathamopasthitatva, and vinigamana-viraha for pratibandhi-kalpanā, apavāda and vaijātya, holds that these are not properly tarka, but are so called only because they help as accessories to pramānas (pramāna-sahakāritva-rupa-sādharmyāt tathā vyavahārah). Visvanatha-vrtti, 1. I. 40.
1 Gangesa on tarka and Mathuranātha's commentary thereon. Tattvacintamani, Part 11, pp. 219-28.
* Ibid. p. 220; see also Kămākhyānātha's note, also p. 228.
