________________
Notes
133
P. 18. L. 2-3. The Jaina logicians believe that the cause is characterised by the only quality of not being co-herent otherwise. A question arises that if cause is characterised by one quality only, the fallacy should also be only one (Nyāyaviniscaya vivarana 2. 196). Akalanka says that in fact there is only one fallacy, akiñcitkara, which is classified into three as shown in the following para of the text (Nyāyaviniscaya vivarana, 2. 202). It may be mentioned that the text also mentions akiñcitkara in para 60 as a variety of fallacy given by Dharmabhūşana. Yasovijaya refutes this variety. Obviously the akiñcitkara of Akalanka is different from that of Dharma şana.
P. 18. L. 4-8. Devas üri's definition of unproved is more specific : 'the probane, whose quality of not being coherent otherwise is not proved through an organ of knowledge, is unproved'. Pramānanayatattvā lokālankāra (6. 48).
The first example of unproved gives visibility as a quality of sound; as it is admitted neither by the disputant nor the opponent; it is said to be unproved for both. The second example asserts that trees have no death. This is a probane advanced by the Buddhists who hold it but the opponents, namely the Jainas, do not accept this. Therefore it is a probane unproved for the one, namely the opponent. The third is the example where the probane is unproved for the disputant. This inference is advanced by a Sankhya philosopher. Now the Sankhya philosopher does not maintain that anything can be created; it can only have manifestations. Therefore the probane is here unproved to the disputant.
The Naiyāyika accepts three types of unproved cause. In the first case the subject is non-existent. In the second case, the cause, advanced in the inference, is not factual with reference to the subject. In the third case the concomitance involves a condition (upādhi) (Tarka-sangraha, p. 46).
The Ratnākarāvatārikā (6. 51) has given as many as 25 varieties of the unproved cause advanced by the non-Jaina system.
The Jainas include all these varieties in the two, given above.
P. 18. L. 9-20. It may be argued that there is no fallacy
