Book Title: Nyaya Theory of Knowledge
Author(s): S C Chateerjee
Publisher: University of Calcutta

Previous | Next

Page 70
________________ NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE 51 the inference : 'Whatever is smoky is fiery; this object is smoky ; therefore this object is fiery. If this conclusion be false, then its contradictory, this object is not fiery' should be true. But the latter proposition is found to be absurd by the following tarka. If in the case of this object smoke is not related to fire, then it cannot be an effect of fire. But it must be due either to fire or to not-fire There is no third alternative here. We do not find it to arise out of not-fire Hence if it is not due to fire, it must be either an uncaused effect or a non-existent phenomenon The first alternative contradicts the law of universal causation and is therefore untenable. The second alternative becomes self-contradictory, since it commits us to the proposition that the smoky object is smokeless For, if A (smoke) be a mark of B (not-fire), and B (not-fire) were a mark of C (not-smoke), then A (smoke) would be a mark of ( (not-smoke) In view of such absurdities involved in the contradictory of the original conclusion we must reject it as false and accept the original conclusion as true and as based on a valid inference. It is to be observed, however, that the Nyāya division of tarka into five different kinds is logically unsound This division has reference to the different kinds of reasoning which may be tested by an argument like tarka. But the classification of tarka should not be based on the kinds of reasoning that may be tested by it, because these are unlimited and quite external to the nature of tarka as a type of argument. A classification of tarka must be based on the logical character of the arguments employed in different cases. Now having regard to its logical character, we find that tarka is fundamentally of one kind. In every case in which it is employed it has the form of an inconsistent argument (anıştaprasanga) developed out of the conclusion of a given reasoning or its contradictory. If

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440