Nirgrantha-2

Author(s): M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre

Page 22

Vol. II-1996
Nyāyāvatāra....
This is not to deny that there is some ambiguity in the term paksa itself, as has been well discussed by Staal 12. B. The Antarvyāpti theory The N. A. has its basic statement about "inner pervasion" in its verse 20 :
Antarvyäptyaiva sādhyasya siddher-bahirudāhstih vyarthā syāt tad-asadbhāve 'py-evam nyāyavido viduh || Logicians have noticed that an exterrial example would be useless (vyartha), since even in its absence there is proof of
a thesis (sādhya) just by internal pervasion (antarvyāpti). The author seems to have adopted an awkward expression 'useless' for what would be more accurate-a term signifying 'unnecessary', since external examples are often useful for teaching purposes. Indeed, this author himself presented an external example in his verse 19, which is the best composed of any I have noticed in this text:
Sadhye nivartamāne tu sādhanasyäpy-asambhavah
khyāpyate yatra drstānte vaidharmyeneti sa smộtaḥ 11 The clue to the meaning of this verse is his use of the locative absolutes, which lend a conditional "When such and such is the case." And the explanation is suggested in Stcherbatsky's well-known work on logic. So the verse is now rendered :
For which place it is mentioned that given a thesis which is being denied, also the impossibility of a means of proof (= a reason), it is held that the example is in the sense of
vaidharmya (discordance). In illustration, it might be said : "Suppose there were no fire on the mountain, and also suppose there is no reason of seeing smoke there, like the water of a lake (the discordant example')." And then the speaker continues : "But there is a fire on the mountain, for now we do see some smoke there !"
Also, this author had presented the concordant example in his N. A. verse 18 :
Sadhyasādhanayor-vyāptir-yatra niściyatetarām sādharmyeņa sa drstāntaḥ sambandhasmaraņān mataḥ Where the pervasion of the thesis and the proving method is definitely established, the example is claimed as with
concordance due to remembering the connection. Here the author shows that the external example is unnecessary for establishing the required pervasion; but since people at large should remember the connection,
Also: