Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

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

Page 124

Nyāyāvatāra: 20.
13
the absence of the middle term (hetu), thus:
1) This hill has no smoke (major term); 2) because it has no fire (middle term); 3) just as a lake (heterogeneous example).
अन्तर्व्याप्त्यैव साध्यस्य सिद्धर्बहिरुदाहृतिः । व्यर्था स्यात्तदसद्भावेऽप्येवं न्यायविदो विदुः ॥ 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 link 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 the fire and smoke is shown by the hill (minor term), which is their common ground.
External inseparable connection (bahir-vyāpti) occurs when an example (drşļānta) from outside is introduced as the common link of the middle term (hetu) and the major term (sādhya) to reassure 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) just as a kitchen (example).
Here the kitchen, which forms no essential part of the inference, is introduced from outside as the com