________________
52
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
this inconsistent argument arises out of the conclusion of the given reasoning, we are convinced that the given reasoning is invalid. If it arises out of the contradictory of the conclusion of a given reasoning, we know for certain that the original conclusion and the given reasoning are valid. As to its logical character, therefore, tarka seems to correspond to the antilogism in Western logic. According to some Western logicians,' the antilogism is an inconsistent triad of propositions by which the validity of any syllogism may be determined. A syllogism is proved to be valid if by combining the contradictory of its conclusion with the original premises we get an inconsistent triad. If, however, the resulting triad is consistent, the original syllogism is invalid. It is also admitted by these Western logicians that the inconsistent triad, like the Naıyayıka's tarka, is not itself an argument. It should however be remarked here that the logical form of the argument in tarka does not exactly correspond to that of the antilogism. Tarka is put into the form of an implicative argument, while the antilogism into that of a categorical syllogism. Again, tarka may be employed to test the validity of any reasoning, inferential or otherwise, and it may be developed out of a given conclusion or its contradictory with or without the original premises.
1 Cf Chapman and Henle, The Fundamentals of Logic, pp 90 and 102.
