Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

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

Page 131

20
Nyāyāvatāra; 25.
Here the example involves in the heterogeneous form a defect in both the major and middle terms (sādhya and sādhana), 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 non-omniscient is not nonpropounder of the four noble truths, as Buddha (heterogeneous example).
Here the example involves in the negative form a doubt as to the validity of the major term (sādhya), 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 un-trustworthy is not full of passions, as 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 flesh to the hungry (middle term); whoever is devoid of passions gives his own flesh to the hungry, as Buddha (heterogeneous example)
Here the example involves doubt as to the validity of both the major and middle terms (sādhya and sādhana), for it is doubtful whether Buddha was devoid of passions and gave his own flesh to the hungry.
Some unnecessarily lay down three other kinds of fallacy of the heterogeneous example (vaidharmyadrșțāntābhāsa), viz.:
1) Unseparated (avyatireki): This person is not devoid of passions (major term), because he is a speaker