________________
Vol. XXXV, 2012
Concept of Anumana In Jainism
111
Patrasvamin justifies that anyathānupapannatva is the principal characteristic of a probans. Through presumption (arthāpatya) the same characteristic implies three features, viz. Pakşadharmatva, Sapakşasattva, and Vipaksavyavrattatva, but the Vipaksavyāvrtti or anyathānupapatti can imply all other features which do not serve any useful purpose. As a matter of fact, the relation of invariable con-comitance (avinābhāva), which is, the heart of hetu, is not present in the three-featured reasons (trairūpya-hetu), but found in the one-featured (ekarūpya hetu).
Shantarakshita then quotes a renowned kärikā of Patrasvamin from the Trilaksanakadarthana as follows:
anyathānupapannattvam yasya tasyaiva hetutā. drastantau dvavapi stam va ma va tau hi na kāranam nanyathānupapannatyam yatra tatra trayeņa kim. anyathānupapannatvam yatra tatra trayeņa kim.
It means anyathānupapannatva is the only probans. There may be three corroborative instances, but really they cannot be depended upon. If the anyathānupapannatva is not there, what is the use of three features? and if the anyathānupapannatva is there, what is the use of the three features (trairūpya)? He illustrates this point saying that the man who has three sons is called ekaputraka on account of having one good son (Suputratvāt). Similarly in the case of the three featured probans only feature would be useful in making inferences. Patrasvamin's Attempt to Prove his Position :
Patrasvamin has tried to prove that there can be no anyathānupapannatva hetu in the three-featured probans. For instance, "one must be dark (pakşasatva), because one is the son of so and so (sapakşasatva), whose other sons are found to be dark (vipaksasatvavyāvstti)". This example contains the three-featured probans. Even then it cannot lead to any valid and definite knowledge and conclusion. For there is no avinābhavasambandha (relation of invaribale con-comi-tance between his son and his darkness. The climate and eating of vegetables by his mother during the pregnancy is real cause. Therefore, the Trairūpya is not a corrrect theory.
Patrasvamin again pointed out that the one-featured probans has the requisite capacity of leading to valid knowledge. It has no external corroborative instances, either of similarity or of dissimilarity, either in the form of statement or in the form of actual things, because all things have
