________________
312
Atsushi Uno
(vyāpti). The latter, however, primarily verbal (vacanātmaka) in nature, being useful to convince the opponent (prativadin) of the knowledge of the probandum (sādhya). But each school of Indian logic came to tend to decrease the number of syllogism in later times, though such decrease depends on the faculty of opponents.
(i) pratijñā (argument): the mountain has fire,
The argument itself is called pakṣa, and the subject (mountain) is also called paksa. Fire which is predicate of the argument is called probandum (sādhya), and the mountain possessing fire (dharmin; Sp) is sometimes sādhya.
Jambū-jyoti
(ii) hetu (reason): because of smoke.
Generally "reason," which enables one to obtain the inferential knowledge, is expressed by the ablative case of hetu (e.g. smoke) as a phrase. It is also called sadhana or sadhaka.
However, how does the opponent (prativadin) act upon hearing pratijñā and hetu succeedingly? Does he not show any effect or response, saying to himself "what about smoke ?" It may be because he does not know invariable concomitance (vyāpti) between smoke and fire, or he may come to know the vyapti only after he is shown any example like a kitchen. [Three cases, on the part of the opponent, will be introduced later.]
Jain Education International
If the opponent is, after hearing the hetu, aware of the fact that there is fire wherever smoke occurs, he is compelled to construct in his mind the idea of vyapti. However, this vyāpti is not expressed verbally by either the speaker (vādin; instructor) or the opponent (prativādin). This vyāpti is not installed in the syllogism as an independent member, though happening after the two members. Some are of the opinion that this vyapti is included in the third member "udāharaṇa" (or dṛstanta), but I do not accept this opinion. For dṛṣṭānta should be literally an instance of basis on which to affirm the vyapti. However, the paksa (subject of the argument; e.g. mountain) eventually comes to be regarded as the locus of the vyapti, and the inference finishes. Thus any school of Indian logic beginning with the Nyaya-Vaiseṣika generally accepts the dṛstanta as any locus outside the paksa, but does not consider the pakṣa to be a dṛṣṭānta.
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
