Role Of Drstanta Indignagas Logic

Author(s): Shoryu Katsura
Publisher: Shoryu Katsura

Page 18

He presupposes the following proof formulae which corresponds to Hetucakra No. 2:
[proposition] "anityah kabdah"
[reason] "kṛtakatvāt"
[similar ex.] "yat kṛtakam tad anityam yatha ghaṭaḥ" [dissimilar ex.] "yan nityam tad akṛtakam yathākāśam"
Dignaga points out that if the dissimilar example of Proof 8 were formulated in the reversed way as "yad akṛtatakam tan nityam", then instead of 'non-eternity' (anityata) 'eternity' would be proved by the property of 'not being a product', which is absurd. If, on the other hand, the similar example were formulated in the reversed way as "yad anityam tat kṛtakam", then instead of 'non-eternity' a property of 'being a product' would be proved by 'non-eternity', which is absurd.30 Then he examines Hetucakra No. 8 whose 'reason' (hetu) does not pervade the whole domain of a property to be proved or the set of similar instances (sapakṣa) unlike in the above case. It runs as follows:
[proposition] "anityaḥ sabdaḥ"
[reason]
[similar ex.] "yatha ghato vidyuc ca" [dissimilar ex.] "yathākāśam"
"prayatnänantariyakatvāt"
[Proof 8]
[Proof 9]
Dignaga sees the problems if two examples are not properly formulated. If a similar example is formulated as "Whatever is no-eternal is produced by a human. effort" (anityam prayatnanantariyakam eva) and a dissimilar example as
Dignaga on Example - 18
30 PSV[K] 148b7-8: gal te chos mthun pa'i dbang gis gang ma byas pa de rtag go zhes brjod na/ ma byas pa'i phyir dam ma bcas pa nyid Kyi rtag pa bsgrub par 'gyur ro // ci ste chos mi mthun pa'i dbang gis gang <mi> rtag pa de ni bya ba'o zhes de ltar yang brjod na mi rtag pa'i phyir byas pa bsgrub par 'gyur ro // (yadi sädharmyavalena yad akṛtakam tad anityam ity ucyate/akṛtakatvenäpratijñātam eva nityatvam sadhitam syat/atha viadharmyavasena yadanityam tat kṛtakam ity evam apy ucyate / anityatvena krtakatvam sadhitam syat ) Cf. PSV (V] D 60b3-4; Kitagawa (19).