Jain Journal 1998 04

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 13

BANERJEE : SIDDHASENADIVĀKARA AND HIS NYAYĀVATĀRA
103
he at once brings to mind the inseparable connection between fire and smoke, and concludes that there must be fire on the hill. This is the inference for one's own self.
If the inference is communicated to others through words, it is called an inference for the sake of others. A type of this kind of inference is as follows: (1) The hill (minor term or paksa) is full of fire (major term or
sādhya); (2) because it is full of smoke (middle term or hetu); (3) whatever is full of smoke is full of fire, as, e.g. a kitchen (example
or drstānta); (4) so is this hill full of smoke (application or upanaya); (5) therefore this hill is full of fire (conclusion or nigamana).
4.Terms of a syllogism In a proposition the subject is the minor term (pakşa) and the predicate the major term (sādhya). The minor term is that with which the connection of the major term is to be shown. In the proposition "the hill is full of fire", the hill is the minor term and fire major term. The middle term (hetu) is defined as that which cannot occur otherwise than in connection with the major term. Thus in the proposition : "the hill is full of fire because it is full of smoke", smoke is the middle term which cannot arise from any other thing than fire which is the major term. The example (drstānta) is a familiar case which assures the connection between the major term and the middle term. It is of two kinds. (1) homogeneous or affirmative (sādharmya), such as, "the hill is full of fire because it is full of smoke, as a kitchen", and (2) heterogeneous or negative (vaidharmya) which assures the connection between the middle term and major term by contrariety, that is, by showing that the absence of the major term is attended by the absence of the middle term, such as "where there is no fire there is no smoke, as in a lake."
In an inference for the sake of others the minor term (paksa) must be explicitly set forth, otherwise the reasoning might be misunderstood by the opponent, e.g. This hill has fire because it has smoke.
This instance, if the minor term is omitted, will assume the following form:
Having fire, I Because having smoke.
Here the opponent might not at once recollect any instance in which fire and smoke exist in union, and might mistake a lake for