Nyayavatara

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

Page 49

Translation with Notes
17
Here the example involves a defect in the middle term (hetu), for a dream is not a source of true knowledge.
(3) The omniscient being is not existent (major term), because he is not apprehended by the senses (middle term), like a jar (homogeneous example).
Here the example involves a defect in both the major and middle terms (sādhya and hetu), for the jar is both existent and apprehended by the senses.
(4) This person is devoid of passions (major term), because he is mortal (middle term), like the man in the street (homogeneous example). Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of the major term, for it is doubtful whether the man in the street is devoid of passions.
(5) This person is mortal (major term). because he is full of passions (middle term), like the man in the street (homogeneous example). Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of the middle term, for it is doubtful whether the man in the street is devoid of passions.
(6) The person is not omniscient (major term), because he is full of passions (middle term), like the man in the street (homogeneous example). Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of both the major and middle terms, for it is doubtful whether the man in the street is full of passions and not omniscient.
Some unnecessarily lay down three other kinds of fallacy of the homogeneous example (sādharmya-dṛṣṭāntābhāsa), viz. :
(1) Unconnected (ananvaya), such as: This person is full of passions (major term), because he is a speaker (middle term), like a certain man in Magadha (example).
Here though a certain man in Magadha is both a speaker and full of passions, yet there is no inseparable connection between "being a speaker" and "being full of passions."
(2) Of connection unshown (apradar šitānvaya), such as :
Sound is non-eternal (major term), because it is a product (middle term) as a jar (example).
Here though there is an inseparable connection between "product" and "noneternal" yet it has not been shown in the proper from, as :
"Whatever is a product is non-eternal as a jar."
[Dinnaga the Buddhist urged the necessity of converting the example into a universal proposition with a view to showing the connection between the middle term and the major term in the proper form.]
(3) Of contrary connection (viparitanvaya), such as :
Sound is non-eternal (major term), because it is a product (middle term).
Here if the inseparable connection (vyāpti) is shown thus"Whatever is non-eternal is a product as a jar." instead of thus
3
"Whatever is a product is non-eternal as a jar," the example would involve the fallacy of contrary connection,