________________
372
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
IS INEXPLICABILITY OTHERWISE OTHERWISE INEXPLICABLE? 373
inseparable connection of the inferable property (id ) and the logical reason. Such a cognition that groups this invariable concomitance) is called suppositional knowledge, because only this (suppositional knowledge] possesses cognitive validity as regards that [invariable concomitance), in so far as cognitive validity of other kinds of cognition is inexplicable as regards that invariable concomitance), because they are] have no efficacy to grasp that [invariable concomitance),
CE. NKC p. 434.9-10 ad LT 2.11: ligame n t franare artist வாங்கமானான்i yetu thisays ராமான்-வியால் bidalanul. Akalahka follows the Canonical tradition subdivides
p i ntomat dine, or sensuous cognition, and trad e, which comprises testimony, inference ete, see LT 2.10 and LT 2.61 (p. 682):
al prabant parcarica didhaniwantvida antar-Add wante omad parata The tradition of Siddhasena Mahamati (and probably Patrasmin) differs from this tradition, see BALCEROWICZ (2001: xii). "See also NAV 119: dawid anuman adlaw and m e gratando dla gocaro iuii want and Therefore, since there is no other logical alternative, anybody postulating inference should also accept suppositional knowledge, which is disposed towards grasping that relation, the domain of which are three times (and) which is undeviating "LT 2.49b (p. 652.1-2): Man
c he Artisakalenin tanto adiget "NAV 18.2: amewataka grati-pratimo r kalo-Admo
padicaria vAhile we generaya man naatkasay i tikapa pramoniniana samanho grafikayetanol
NAV 1.13: sito pro dramud datidan Lottane-linghandhagratana.promat pum aram. NAT NAV 1.14: palamidalamh-
w
a nita yurtidumami ay nakating
b y Note that the same passage occurs in NKC, see n. 66, but there it is the formulation of avind !
NKC, sep. 351, comp. n. 66. NS 1.140: ag e rangpur adina aratat NBh 11.1: tarkem pro sangria Andorradinitran prumid anwradar myndinde kalan datangan dan jimatan Anand inaruwe dhanidark and armitam illam angive the tirandato a purpure-Jadraten und war henched wapanno Juniwdestat att patena Me hichdarand anuparannelandda atharmitant, ale ad inurumdan narayanti Mriym-ruarன் கeparate, an immoranetnians " TSaPad TSa 1386 (p. 409.12-14) சங்கரல்வ papersenee hearts ! ந கரம் alarmiyார்க்கப்பலr nineN
arispatialar.iet கனம் வார்ம ர்! கனவாள்வர் வாக்கyae The text in Embar Krishnamacharya's edition a nd should be emended as above, cf. PATHAK (1930: 156-7) and KUNST (1939: 26 n. 3).
If we concern the latest proposal of evaluating the data, YDI is a much earlier work than any of the Jaina sources discussed in my paper: MEJOR (2000:263): 'all that gives a solid basis for the lower limit of the Yuto
550 CE, which is in agreement with the date proposed by FRAUWALLNER.", and MEJOR (2000: 273): 'In this case YD cannot be placed later than 600 C.E.
YDI (adSK.4) p. 73.7-18: war dann d uidhibicrimi dartinian windhavainni af kesarugor
har sannanlalar dalam berulan besar ward-wanitaMarinaw p inta alabiya granadele jio wardia in tad anuman kanham
sind kenar-wartaver you wardjayaw layer ga n sumandhat are valdkeranimo jauspalad arimanasa para gratuite r ud teminde dalgan amhandsamada i prijat prut ditandard-amband med handitantaru pranua ad amare
han fregattirato me limit the a rat PBh (2.12.2.0) (260). p. 48-49: darsinarhad and when sind எனையாளா
Interestingly, Dharmottara (c.740-800) seems (or pretends) not to know the notion of award for he does not refer to it, at least not in NBT, even in the discussion of two forms of the examples in NB 3.28 ff(-DhPr 3.26 fr). A reference to it is made by Durvekamisrn (970-1030), commenting on NB 3.26 in DhPr P. 16721-22 THCE BALCEROWICZ (2000:33): 'In NA 20 Siddhasena maintains that dr is not an essential part of "syllogistic reasoning, inasmuch as the relation of invariable concomitance( ) suffices to prove the thesis. This is a continuation of the
economical trend in Indian logie-that starts with Vaubandhu and his Video s and do-widto limit the number of necessary members of the proof formula, to simplify the reasoning procedures and to make such procedures universally binding, without any need for further empirical justification than the promises themselves: NA 20: ...' (wide s a n. 25). 10 NAV 20.1: pada sanatra scidindovinaw herwsmarali pranidastada pabr wanawaww kathawi iwe praat? 12 Ceg, TSa 1368, 1371 p. 344, nn. 10,25. LTV a winarna ska-laban-riddhit, n. 20.
Cf. NA 17.1: de care apy kamie dhe prayokaye 'id'o mare, me chipa d e pau ca scopata de ced etende slu t propanula atarakalem --'And in order to instruct someone who might maintain: "Both of these two together have to be pronounced with regard to one and the same) probandum," the author) says: "precisely in either way"... [The result of (either pronouncement is the proof of the probandum. If this (probandum) is proved just by one of these two ways of pronouncement), the pronouncement of the other one would only evince the ineptitude of the speaker, because it is purposeless. Further, in NAV 18, we find an opinion that all we need for valid inference are two members: paba and Anw. Prabhacandra refers to an interesting (hypothetical?) objection that if a person knows the context very well, he can understand the argument without stating the logical reason and only the thesis is enough, in other words, in certain circumstances it is enough to express the thesis only. not the see NKC p. 436.13-20: progi d haa ar anidhar prajit
u rand programu sa prido karcin mande mani kamar mai are manda-mana pada praw a pravili prevaramanlardate, wideh parche paroge pralina w [recte: sanitats amb matera
ad og teng migraka-thandhidhani hinaw anataman i am INS 3.2.12 i-ramai tine-mares in a program antarende w owo-main pratya naties are under her preveure und W
ord mirar-di-prawomirjad udara ma nteprungut-drid-And it is not established that one does
