Nyayavatara

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

Page 51

Translation with Notes
व्यतिरेकस्तैरुक्तो यथा, अनित्यः शब्दः कृतकत्वात् आकाशवदित्यत्र विद्यमानोऽपि व्यतिरेको वादिना वचनेन उद्भावित इति दुष्टता। विपरीतव्यतिरेकः पुनरभिहितो यथा, अनित्यः शब्दः कृतकत्वाद् इत्यत्र वैधर्म्यदृष्टान्तो यदकृतकं तन्नित्यं भवति यथाऽकाशमिति इत्यत्र विपर्यस्तव्यकिरेकप्रदर्शनात् विपरीतव्यतिरेकित्वम् ॥ २५ ॥
25. Logicians have declared that fallacies of example in the heterogeneous form arise when the absence of the major term (sādhya) or the middle term (sādhana or hetu) or both is not shown or when there is a doubt about them.
The fallacy of heterogeneous example (vaidharmya-drstāntābhāsa) is of six kinds, thus:(1) Inference is invalid (major term), because it is a source of true knowledge
(middle term); whatever is not invalid is not a source of true
knowledge as a dream (heterogeneous example). Here the example involves in the heterogeneous form a defect in the major term (sādhya), for a dream is really invalid though it has been cited as not invalid. (2) Perception is non-reflective or nirvikalpaka (major term), because it is a
source of true knowledge (middle term); whatever is reflec.ive or savikalpaka is not a source of true knowlege, as inference (hetero
geneous example). Here the example involves in the heterogeneous form a defect in the middle term (sādhana), for inference is really a source of true knowledge though it has been cited as not such. (3) Sound is eternal and non-eternal (major term), because it is an existence
(middle term); whatever is not eternal and non-eternal is not an
existence, as a jar (heterogeneous example). Here the example involves in the heterogeneous form a defect in both the major and middle terms (sādhya and sådhana), for the jar is both "eternal and non-eternal," and "an existence." (4) Kapila is non-omniscient (major term), because he is a non-propounder
of the four noble truths (middle term); whoever is not nonomniscient is not non-propounder of the four noble truths, as
Buddha (the heterogeneous example). Here the example involves in the negative form a doubt as to the validity of the major term (sädhya), for it is doubtful whether Buddha was omniscient. (5) This person is untrustworthy (major term), because he is full of
passions (middle term); whoever is not untrustworthy is not full of
passions, a Buddha (heterogeneous example). Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of the middle term (hetu), for it is doubtful whether Buddha is not full of passions. (6) Kapila is not devoid of passions (major term), because he did not give
his own flesh to the hungry (middle term); whoever is devoid of passions gives his own flesh to the hungry, as Buddha (heterogeneous example).