________________
Slokavārtika--a study
of genuine probans just as an investigation into the nature of invalid cogaition throws light on the nature of valid cognition. The title hetyabhasa covers three sub. titles, viz. asiddha, sandigdha, viruddha; of these, only the last two have to do with he problem of vyāpti---the first having to do with the problem of pakşadharmata. That is why Kumärila's treatment of just these two is being examined for the present.
In a debate as conceived by Indian logicians there are two parties, one called vädin or the original disputant the other called prativădin or the rival disputant. The original disputant is supposed to formulate a vyāpti and quote a corroborative instance which might be either of a homologue type in that both the probans and the probandum are present here or of a heterologue type in that they are both absent here; the rival disputant is supposed to quote a contrary instance where the probans is present but the probandum absent. Now the rival disputant's procedure is understandable, for even a single contrary instanee is sufficient to invalidate the vyāpti formulated by the original disputant. But it is difficult to see what the original disputant gains by quoting just one corroborative instance (even of the homologue type); (such quotation can at the best indicate that the vyāpti concerned is prima facie plausible but that is nothing much). However, the phenomenon of quoting an instance is to be constantly kept in mind if we are to make an intelligent appreciation of Kumārila's account of the hetvābhasas sandigdha and viruddha. To take sandigdha first, it is defined as the probans whose capacity to establish the presence of the probandum is doubtful; and it is said to be of three types, viz. sādharana, asadharana and viruddha-vyabhicărin. (i) Thus in the case of the subtype sădharana it is possible to quote a contrary instance where the probans is present but the probandum absent. It is a simple case of invalid vyāpti, for a valid vyāpti is one in whose case it is impossible to quote a contrary instance. But the fact is expressed by saying that in the case of the subtype sädhäraņa the presence of a contrary instance renders it doubtful whether the probandum is actually present in the case under dispute. (ii) Again, in the case of the subtype asādhārana it is impossible to quote a single corroborative instance (of the homologue type) or a single contrary instance-so that here the case under dispute is the only case where the probans and the probandum might be possibly present. It is a simple, case where a vyapti is altogether impossible, for the relation of vyāpti obtains only between two such features as are possibly present in several cases besides the case under dispute (let us ignore that Kumārila has also conceded-wrongly--that this relation can possibly obtain between two absolutely unique features). But the fact is expressed by saying that in the case of the subtype asādhāraņa the impossibility of quoting a corroborative instance renders it doubtful wbether the probandum is actually present in the case under dispute. (iii) Lastly, in the case of the subtype viruddha--vyabhicărin it is possible to apply to the case under dispute a rival vyāpti-that is, a vyāpti where the probandum is 'absence of the original probaodum'; clearly, here the original vyāpti cannot be proved valid unless it is first proved that the rival vyāpti is invalid or that the probans of
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
