________________
368
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
IS INEXPLICABILITY OTHERWISE OTHERWISE INEXPLICABLE? 369
soteriological destiny (e.g. one's capability to attain liberation cannot be known without the scriptural testimony, see STP 3.43-45:
danike dhammado aterior her-woya Aartha wate-do bandwidao bad II hamisamma-diamananda-critte d நர்காஸ்கோப்-as a badthaan e-mayana je spadesammavum மாயாம், s amayo.PURCH Siddharthae anno Il
-The exposition of normative principle (or of properties) is twofold: the exposition without reasoning (scriptural; d) and the exposition based reasoning Further, the scriptural exposition (
d d) [distinguishes/deals with beings competent for liberation and incompetent for liberation The characteristic feature of the exposition based reasoning is to argue rationally] that the being competent for liberation, who is endowed with the understanding of conation, correct cognition and correct conduct, will necessarily bring an end to suffering The one who [applies) reasoning to a topic (within the scope of the exposition based reasoning (sc. in rational discourse) and (who applies) scripture to scriptural exposition, demonstrates his own doctrine. The other one [who fails to do so]
abuses teachings. "See eg GANERI (2001:1-2). * Cf. VP 1.34 data-data-lalandim bhedid Miamija / Mladinim anamnena presidir a liderland! -"Since the endowments fof things) are different due to difference in condition,
place and time, the proof of things through inference is most difficult Notice the pun on it by way of quoting the same verse with some modification in its very refutation found in TSa 1476: aart-desia-dilanda bhedid Minnirwakil கேப்பான்களை வாயான் ad rikattai roaridad
... the proof of things through inferencer morso dificult on air dari "CL VP 1.34: pranimi rohat basilaranumit சத்திற்கான காரoapamare 'Even (when) a thing is inferred with much effort by expert logicians, it is still]
explicable in another way by other more skilled (logicians) Notice the pun on it by way of refutation in Ta a 1477:
parendrars at a miraai
கரகரக்களமர் எந்தவர் Nை "NKC LT 2.12 p. 444.16) sad prac y
i samitra Here ad praatinde ranjant, and it make
Cl, eg PVSV 3.24-25 (p. 185): armilaba dd wedd pamman பாவடைக்க ய pan-Intuan Mediaalaip r ii pradara, and NB(1).3.31: h anifundwand prarat sana mwanada m citam
Eg the cases mentioned in TSa 1371ab and NAT ad NAV 5.2: see also n. 11 and P. 344. SI See the examples on p. 349-350. *2 See the criticism in NKCR440.11-441.9. * C. NKC ad LT 2.12 (p. 440.4fE). SCL e.g. BHATT (1989: 218 ff.).
s vides yra pp. 344 and 349. The above counters the supposition of UNO (1993: 160) that there is no divergence of opinion anong Indian philosophical systems that these two (e. and patro-durmar-P.B.) are postulated as indispensable factors, either separately or jointly, for obtaining the conclusion, or the final inferential cognition (mm) ** See e.g PV (P) 1.287cd (p. 61) PV (S) 1.287ab (p. 109): anumandirno longer
bie-latranum/ -'The basis for infference is the inferential sign, which is characterised by the inseparable connection and PVV ad loc:undert said
t hich allakanan yana tarati The term and was, however, not the sole property of the Buddhist and it were probably not the Buddhists who coined it (wide ifa, n. 60). However, I deliberately speak of the Buddhist relation of individ, for this relation is always discussed by the Jains authors in the context of such Buddhist sotions as train or Adid and
ad-ugal SCE also Prajňákaragupta's analysis in PVA (p. 70 in nu vinde e l கர்பாலர் பல்லவர் காகaraind.
GANERI (2001: 152). Cf. also the Chapter 4.7 in GANERI (2001: 114-118). * GANERI (2001: 152). This idea goes back probably to the Vida-vidhana Vavi), an carlier work of Vasubandhu (), see Fr. Al 7 hour watsad visesan "The logical reason is the difference from dissimilar cases
The term window was not an innovation of Dinnaga, for it is already attested in Vado-widWVIVI) of Vasubandhu as a relation validating the logical reason (Fr. B 5); ladry-awddw-dharmadarslanan her 'Logical reason is the demonstration of a property which is inseperably connected with a property of such a kind to be infered)', cf. FRAUWALLNER (1957:118, 136) and FRANCO (1990: 202). We find it also in PBh (2.12.26.0) (250), p. 46-47: www.sanaira deso-taldvind-tatan Harasya lingam. In this way the inferential sign of the other (viz. of the sign-possessor) is inseparably connected with it) as regards place and time in all cases, as well as in PBh (2.12.2b.0) (261), p. 49: samdidie pyawindhavand anumanomen *Equivalence as a cognitive criterion) is nothing but inference, in so far as it is based on the inseparable connection.' Cf. also NENNINGER (1992: 124 ff.). "NKC p. 4218-9 LT 2.10: ayum avindt dat d e sciandom adatto trata-mama-mucamat majambandhu-vocant. NKC p. 423.10-4243 LT 2.10yae containw indo tratami COMO na sambande-acarat And apylimme par winddica-abdom unr-nunwar -Mive par t karយក என கர்ப ச் tattippaayரமாக்taurapat-araternity entin [se NA 17 n. 65), atat pend a nt quatre piatra daima intre samnet puurnir ni tatradimo na m argir nitiate dinimo and in-car but ante in ageri daima yene pratheriumararadisம கற்க ல்ல, காராகyaridasie prbacil எம் மூலcase arid வாடdir atima Akaril palarspels aga iad கன்papatti - கலை மான்க ள் அநpaமான் சார் ditumena atat in induppatica dhaimau tamad asaw fan-patiti Comp. also PNT 3.29: www.eparat a matapatid pratarat. "CI NAV 17.1: by wagwaran dumasar apanter i
This wyanen samdi vopacknad anparangpamin lakrawan aku sadhyayarete aparitiawidhumdinare lasa ataupun kesto wpagat po pokiym ars, thimahiyawadmapappaiter ad; etc,
