Indian Logic Part 01

Author(s): Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Sanskrit Sanskriti Granthmala

Page 70

PRAMÂNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
The first group comprising the four subtypes where a 'capacity' is posited are on the whole criticized not on the basis of some logical consideration but on the ontological consideration that the concept of 'capacity' is untenable.21 Jayanta's basic contention is that an effect is produced by a cause accompanied by the appropriate accessories but not possessed of a socalled 'capacity' supposed to be something supersensuous. » The Mimāṁsaka argues that a capacity' is to be posited for the following reasons :
(1) Otherwise, any thing might produce any thing inasmuch as all things are similar qua a substance;
(2) While under the influence of a spell a thing apparently remaining the same and remaining accompanied by the appropriate accessories fails to produce the effect concerned, and this happens because this thing is now deprived of the capacity' concerned;
(3) When the same act on the part of a person happens to produce different results in the case of different persons the. Nyaya authors too posiț a supersensuous causal factor in the form of dharma (= spiritual merit accumulated owing to past acts) etc., and a 'capacity’ has to be posited analogically.2 3
In reply to all this Jayanta first argues that the determination as to what cause accompanied by what accessories produce what effect is made on the basis of an observation of concomitancein-presence and concomitance-in-absence, there being nothing incongruous about these accessories including a supersensuous factor like dharma etc, but there being no need to posit 'capacity' as such a factor. * As to why under the influence of a spell a cause even when accompanied by the appropriate accessories fails to produce the effect concerned, the reason suggested is that the accessories are now no more appropriate accessories, for in order to be appropriate they must include a special factor in the form of absence of an obstructing factor like spell etc,',5 to this is added that the same ought to be the Mimamsaka's explanation of the inhibiting activity of a spell or