Nyayavatara

Author(s): Satyaranjan Banerjee
Publisher: Sanskrit Book Depot P Ltd

Page 45

Translation with Notes
13
तत्र हेतुप्रतिपादनमानं जघन्या, वाद्यवयवनिवेदनं मध्यमा, संपूर्णदशावयवकथनमुत्कृष्टा। तत्र इह मध्यमायाः साक्षात् कथनेन जघन्योत्कृष्ट अर्थतः सूचयति ; ततसद्धावस्य प्रमाणसिद्धत्वादिति ।। २० ॥
20. Logicians maintain that to cite an example from outside is useless as that which is to be proved (sādhya) can be proved through internal inseparable connection (antar-vyāpti) even without such example.
Internal inseparable connection (antar-vyāpti) occurs when the minor term (pakşa) itself as the common abode of the middle term (hetu) and the major term (sādhya) shows the inseparable connection between them, thus :
(1) This hill (minor term) is full of fire (major term);
(2) because it is full of smoke (middle term). Here the inseparable connection between fire and smoke is shown by the hill (minor term) which is their common abode.
External inseparable connection (bahir-vyāpti) occurs when an example (drstānta) from outside is introduced as the common abode of the middle term (hetu) and the major term (sādhya) to assure the inseparable connection between them thus :
(1) This hill is full of fire (major term); (2) because it is full of smoke (middle term);
(3) as a kitchen (example). Here the kitchen, which forms no essential part of the inference, is introduced from outside as the common abode of fire and smoke to assure the inseparable connection between them (the fire and smoke).
Some logicians (such as Vasubandhu) hold that that which is to be proved, that is, the major term (sādhya) can be established by the internal inseparable connection (antar-vyāpti) alone, so the pointing out of the external inseparable connection (bahir-vyāpti) is superfluous. Other logicians go so far as to say that even if the minor term (pakşa) is not used, there will be no impossibility in establishing the major term (sādhya). Cf.
(1) This hill (minor term) is full of fire (major term); (2) because it is full of smoke (middle term);
(3) as a kitchen (example). In the above example "as a kitchen," that is, the example, is, according to these logicians, superfluous. Even the minor term (pakşa) can, according to them, be dispensed with thus :
(1) Full of fire (major term);
(2) because full of smoke (middle term). Even here, where there is no minor term (paksa), the example (drstānta), according to them, is useless.
प्रतिपाद्यस्य यः सिद्धः पक्षाभासोऽस्ति लिङ्गतः। लोकस्ववचनाभ्यां च बाधितोऽनेकधा मतः ॥ २१ ॥ प्रतिपाद्यस्य प्रतिवादिनः यः कश्चित् सिद्धः प्रतीतावारुढ एव स पक्षाभासः ।