Book Title: Indian Logic Part 03
Author(s): Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Sanskrit Sanskriti Granthmala

Previous | Next

Page 168
________________ FIVE PADĀRTHAS SAMSAYA... 157 in place of the original and natural meaning according to which the first aphorism referred to cases where a homologue example was mentioned and the second to cases where a heterologue example was mentioned Jayanta adopted a new and rather unnatural meaning according to which the first aphorism referred to cases where a homologue example too was possible (though a heterologue example was of course possible) and the second to cases where a heterologue example was alone possible. As was to be expected, Jayanta seeks to defend the validity of the inference-type where a heterologue example alone can be quoted; and in a nutshell his point is that in case a unique phenomenon necessitates the positing of a unique entity this positing can only be the result of resorting to the inference-type in question, there obviously not being possible in a case like this a homologue example of any direct sort (though the ultimate inference here has to be preceded by another one where a homologue example is well possible).32 Another point that Jayanta incidentally makes is that in the first aphorism the part expressing the idea to prove what is to be proved yields a general definition of a valid probans, that is, the definition that a valid probans is that whose presence somehow necessitates the presence of the probandum concerned; but as is admitted by Jayanta, this is a point which will be elaborated while arguing that the only type of pseudo-probans is the probans whose presence fails to necessitate the presence of the probandum concerned." · After this comes the third avayava drstānta which consists in stating that a relation of invariable concomitance obtains between - the concerned probans and the probandum as is illustrated by a homologue or a heterologue example. But since almost this whole idea has been expressed while defining the second avayava hetu the two aphorisms devoted to the third avayava simply describe what a homologue example and a heterologue example respectively are. Thus the first of these aphorisms in essence says that a homologue example is the entity possessing the concerned probans as well as probandum while the second that a heterologue example is the entity lacking both.34 In this connection Jayanta emphasises that while quoting a heterologue example the concerned invariable concomitance has to have the form 'whatever lacks the probandum concerned lacks the probans concerned' whereas while quoting a homologue example it has to have the form 'whatever possesses the probans possesses the probandum.35 The point is understandable. Again,

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226