________________
'Antarvyāpti' Interpreted in Jainism
313
There is almost no material referring to the function of drstānta, but it is used as the third member, convincing the [dull-minded] opponent of the locus of vyāpti which comes from the preceding two members. The ambiguous character of the drstānta is originally derived from other reasons, which will be referred to later.
However, is the drstānta an indispensable member to the opponent of slow understanding in the inference for others ? I shall show some instances of establishing the probandum (inferential knowledge) even without the help of drstānta. (1) In the three-membered syllogism of Western logic, the major premise
(equivalent to vyāpti; M - P) and the minor premise (roughly equivalent to paksadharmatā; S. M) are necessary for acquiring the conclusion (inferential knowledge; S - P), dispensing with any example.
(2)
In the case of Indian logic, later Buddhism, the Mimāmsaka, and the śānkara-Vedānta accept vyāpti (hetu → sādhya) and paksadharmatā (hetu + paksa) only for acquiring inferential knowledge, omitting drstāna. [The antecedent here is meant to occur in the consequent.)
(3) The Nyāya-Vaiśesika accepts parāmarśa by combining the above
mentioned two elements into one. That is, vyāpti-viśistapaksadharmată-jñānam (the knowledge of paksadharmată possessed of vyāpti).
As has been shown above, to accept the existence of the vyāpti in the antaḥ (pakşa) exclusively is antarvyāpti, without approving of the function of bahih and bahirvyāpti as the main cause (gamaka) of inferential knowledge.
<drstānta>
Drstānta (or udāharana), the third member of the syllogism, was originally set forth in the Nyāyasūtra (abbr. NS) and the Nyāyabhāsya (abbr. NBh), and was quite different in nature from what generally has been understood in later schools of logic.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
