________________
3.5
and changes the nature of the fallacy. In connection with his reading of T'. Mr. Vidhus'ekhara remarks: "T...
g. It has already been noted (Note 20, 2. 16-17 above) that the last 1 in T'is affs and the illustration given above is quite in accordance with it. Yet, T'itself when it illustrates the term, reads af. It appears that T' is perfectly right in reading the last पक्षाभास as प्रसिद्धिविरुद्ध, and in illustrating it as अभिरनुष्णः, for how can प्रसिद्धसंबन्ध be a पक्षाभास and be illustrated as 'शब्दः श्रावण: ' as there is nothing here which can make an appearance (a) of the чer? It is, therefore, evident that there is some confusion in the mss. of both the Skt and other versions".
What makes 'शब्दः श्रावणः ' an आभास of the पक्ष is that it is presented as a and yet is not a Ter, the definition of a requiring that it should be ' साध्यत्वेनेप्सितः ' or ' साधयितुमिष्टः '. This can only be when the truth of the proposition is at issue between the two parties. Such, however, is not the case with > शब्दः श्रावणः 7 and so it is a पक्षाभास. The correctness of the reading of the Skt text of the Nyayapraves'a is vouchsafed by the commentary which in explaining and justifying this abnormal type of a observes as follows: " प्रसिद्धसंबन्धो यथा श्रावणः शब्द इति । प्रसिद्धो वादिप्रतिवादिनोरविप्रतिपत्त्या स्थितः संबन्धो धर्मधर्मिलक्षणो यस्मिन् स तथाविधः । इद्द शब्दो धर्मों श्रावणत्वं साध्यधर्मः । उभयं चैतत् वादिप्रतिar: after"-Vrtti p. 21, 1. 24 to p. 22, 1. 2.
This type is also noted by the author of the Nyāyāvatāra (a work of Jaina logic by Siddhasena Divakara) and its commentator: 'प्रतिपाद्यस्य प्रतिवादिनः यः कश्चित् सिद्धः प्रतीतावारूढ एन स पक्षाभासः । साध्यस्यैव पक्षत्वात् सिद्धस्य साधनानईत्वात् । अतिप्रसक्तेः ॥ "
The Chinese text of the "Praves'a-taraka-s'astra" supports the same reading. Of the four fallacies of the Thesis...not found in Dinna's work, but, only in S'ankara's, the last is thus vindicated by Suguira: "The last fallacy of the Thesis is of quite a different character from the preceding. If in the first fallacy it was regarded as absurd to maintain as a Thesis a statement directly contradictory to fact, so in the last fallacy it is maintained
