________________
320
Atsushi Uno
Jambū-jyoti
Invariable concomitance of the hetu (M) with the sādhya (P) existent in the very object which is considered paksa (S) is antarvyāpti. On the other hand, invariable concomitance existent elsewhere is bahirvyāpti. (pakșikrta eva visaye sādhanasya sādhyena vyāptir antarvyāptih; anyatra tu bahirvyāptih)
[Comment] Vyāpti being synonymous with vyāpyatā, it is a nature or a relation possessed by a pervaded (vyāpya). Therefore I translated “hetu's vyāpti with sādhya" etc.
For example :
(1) <pratijñā> "Entity (vastu) is made up of many natures." (vastu
anekāntātmakam) [<hetu> "Because it is sat." (sattvāt) This is not expressed.] <vyāpti > "Only when the entity is of many natures (sādhya), then
sattva (hetu) is intelligible.” (tathopapatti) (II) <pratijñā> “This place has fire.” (ayam deśo'gnimān)
<hetu> "Because it has smoke.” (dhūmavattvät) <vyāpti > "Whatever possesses smoke has fire." (sa evam sa evam) <drstānta> “Like a kitchen” (yathā pākasthānam)
[Comment] These two examples show antarvyāpti and bahirvyāpti respectively.
Syllogism (1) is lacking in drstānta, because entity (vastu) is highest connotation being synonymous with existent (sat) in Jainism. The sādhya is <anekāntātmakatva> and the hetu is <sattva>, and the vyāpti holding between such two notions is nothing but antarvyāpti, residing in the paksa (= vastu) only and not elsewhere.
Syllogism (2) is equipped with three members : pratijñā, hetu, drstānta, and positive-vyāpti existent in the outer example (bahirdrstānta), i.e., kitchen is bahirvyāpti. <The case of PrM>
Antarvyāpti has much to do with drstānta. Hemacandra in PrM first defined drstānta in three sūtras, discussed it in his own commentary and concluded that it is by no means indispensable to inference, and eventually referred to antaryāpti.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
