Role Of Drstanta Indignagas Logic

Author(s): Shoryu Katsura
Publisher: Shoryu Katsura

Page 23

In this conection, Dignāga seems to accept the opponent's criticism. Namely, he admits that when a pervasion is explicitly expressed in a similar example, a reason's absence in the absence of a property to be proved is shown by implication (arthāpattyā), which makes it unnecessary to formulate a dissimilar example. However, he also maintains that when two examples are to be formulated, a similar example shows a reason's mere presence in a set of similar instances, while a dissimilar example shows a pervasion (vyāpti) in the form of a reason's absence in the absence of a property to be proved." In any case, Dignāga seems to be conceding that it is not absolutely necessary to formulate both examples as long as the pervasion is expressed in one ot the two examples.
An objection arises: If it is enough for a similar example to state a reason's mere presence in a set of similar instances, then there is no need to define it in terms of a reason's being followed by a property to be proved (sadhyenānugamo hetoh) as in PS IV-2a. It is to be noted that 'anugama' is equivalent of vyāpti' in this context. To this Dignāga replies: The purpose of formulating a similar example in that way is to reject the reversed formulation, namely, a property to be proved being followed by a reason (sādhyasya hetunānugamaḥ).99
In order to justify the rejection of the reversed formulation, Dignāga presents a rather complicated argument. First he refers back to PS III.22 where he defined a valid reason (hetu).
"Of the [nine reasons mentioned in PS III.21=NMukh v.6]" the valid reason is that which is either present [wholly) or in two ways [i.e., present and
38 PSV[K] 149b4-5: gnas skabs 'di la shugs nyid kyis bsgrub bya med pa la gtan tshigs med par bstan pa'i phyir chos mi mthun pa'i dpe sbyar bar mi bya'o Il gang gi tshe dpe gnyi ga sbyar bar bya (14965) ba de'i tshe mthun pa'i phyogs la yod pa tsam bstan par bya ba yin la / khyab pa ni bsgrub bya med na med pa ston pas yin no // (asyām cāvasthāyām arthāpattya sādhyābhāve hetor abhāvah pradarsita iti vaidharmyadrstānto na prayoktavyaḥ / yadā tu drstāntadvauam prayoktavyam tadā sapakşe sanmātram pradarsyam, vyāpteh sādhyābhāve 'bhāvena pradarśitatvāt ) Cf. PSV[V] D60b6-61al; Kitagawa (19...).
39 PSV[K] 14965-6: 'on te de ltar na gtan tshigs bsgrub bya'i rjes su 'gro ba ni chos mthun pas rab tu stan to zhes bya ba 'di brjod par bya ba ma yin no zhe na/ 'di yang bsgrub bya gtan tshigs kyi rjes su 'gro ba bkag pa'i don du gyur ro // (na tarhi vaktavyam idam hetoh sādhyānugamah sādharmyeņa pradarsita iti / etat punaḥ sādhyasya hetunānugamapratisedhārtham syāt ) Cf. PSV[V] D61al; Kitagawa (19...).
40 prameyakstakānityakrtaśrāvanayatnajāḥ / anityayatnajāsparśā nityatvādişu te nava // (=### ## # # I .) Quoted in Nyāyavārttika-Tātparyațīkā, loc. cit.
Dignāga on Example - 23