________________
The reamining two characteristics (of a valid reason) are (to be presented by an example[-statement) (drstānta)."10
Here Dignāga seems to be criticizing some unsatisfactory formulation of a proof given by other Indian logicians of his time. In this conection, I suppose that he is presupposing, as for example, the following formulaiton:
(proposition] "anityaḥ śabdaḥ" [reason] "krtakatvāt" [example) "krtako ghato 'nityo drstah" [application] "tathā ca krtakaḥ śabdaḥ" [conclusion] "tasmāt krtakatvād anityaḥ śabdaḥ"
LaPP
[Proof 1]
According to Dignāga, the first characteristic of a valid reason, i.e., pakşadharmatva, is implicitly stated in the statement of a reason of the above Proof 1 because the word 'sabdasya' is understood there and the statement becomes "sabdasya krtakatvāt". The second and the third characteristics (anvaya and vyatireka), however, are not mentioned at all in the entire proof and they must be formulated in the statement of an example in a valid proof. Thus it is clear that in a proof of Dignāga, the statement of a reason expresses the first characteristic (pakşadharmatva) and that the statement of an example expresses the second and the third characterisitos (anvaya and vyatirekc).
Furthermore, Dignaga states in PS IV.2 as follows:
"An example is that [object] in which a reason (hetu) is shown to be followed by a property to be proved (sādhya) or to be absent in the absence of a property to be proved; it is of two kinds: 'similar' (sādharmya) and another (i.e. 'dissimilar' vaidharmya)."
10 trirūpo hetur ity uktam pakşadharme tu samsthitaḥ / rūdhe rūpadvayam śeşam drstāntena pradarśyate // Quoted in VNT (88) with a variant reading.
11 sādhyenānugamo hetoh sādhyābhāve ca năstitā / khyāpyate yatra drstāntah sa sādharmyetaro dvidhā // = NMukh v. 11 E **T# H=49R TE Quoted in
Dignāga on Example - 5
