Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

Author(s): Siddhasena Divakar, Vinayvijay, A N Upadhye
Publisher: Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandal

Page 119

Nyāyāvatāra: 13.
ly called perception. For instance, the deposition of a witness is taken by the judge as equivalent to perception, though in truth the judge has not perceived the fact deposed to.
साध्याविनाभुवो हेतोर्वचो यत् प्रतिपादकम् । परार्थमनुमानं तत् पक्षादिवचनात्मकम् ॥ १३ ॥
13. A statement expressive of the reason (i.e., mark or the middle term, called hetu) which is inseparably connected with that which is to be proved (i.e., the major term, called sādhya) having been composed of the minor term (called pakşa, signifying a side or place), etc., is called an inference for the sake of others (parārthānumāna).
In an “inference for the sake of others” the minor term (pakşa), etc., must be explicitly set forth. The major term or “proven” (sādhya) is that which is to be proved. The middle term or reason (hetu, linga or sādhana) is that which cannot exist, except in connection with the major term or “proven” (sādhya or lingi). The minor term or abode (pakşa) is that with which the reason or middle term (hetu) is connected, and whose connection with the major term (sādhya) is to be proved. In a proposition, the subject is the minor term (pakşa), and the predicate the major term (sādhya). The following is an “inference for the sake of others”:
1) This hill (minor term) is full of fire (major term)-proposition (pratijñā);
2) because it is full of smoke (middle term);
3) whatever is full of smoke is full of fire, just as the kitchen (example, drșțānta);