________________
Means of Valid Cognition Other Than Verbal Testimony
73
valid, invalid or suspicious in the eyes of one party must be so in the eyes of both. His point is that if a debater is convinced that A possesses X then he should say so . even if he knows that the rival is likely to challenge him on this score; for in
case he is actually challenged then if he successfully meets the challenge the proposition in question becomes valid in the eyes of both the parties, if he fails to meet the challenge it becomes invalid in the eyes of both. Kumärila's contention certainly holds good for the cases of oral debate but not for those of written debate-that is, debate conducted through polemical books; for the author of a book can well charge his rival with having made a proposition that is invalid (or suspicious) in his eyes or in the latter's own eyes or in the eyes of both. The point is that in a book it is impo. ssible to settle all issues or to settle even one single issue for all times to come-though even in an oral debate an issue is apparently settled only for the time being; for as soon as an oral debate is over the defeated party (unless turned turncoat) is bound to revert back to its cherished position. And as a matter of historical record, whatever might have been the situation in the very beginning in later times our scholars were chiefly conducting their mutual debate through books rather than through mouth and in the course of it more and more issues were clarified more and more even if none was ever settled to the satisfaction of each and every one.
(iv)
The Problem of Paksa
In connection with inference the last important problem is that of pakşa. We have already come across the word pakļa while speaking of pakṣadharmatā-a compound whose etymology remains to be considered. The word pakşadharmata means "being a feature of the pakşa', and all valid probans has to be a feature of the pakșa whilo an asiddha probans is invalid precisely because it is not such a feature. As thus understood paksa obviously means the locus where the probans is found to be present and the probandum is to be proved to be present in terms of the symbolism adopted by us A is paksa because X is found to be present in it while Y is to be proved to be present in it). However, by the word paksa Kumārila mean the thesis to be proved through an inference-as is evident from his long account of it given in vv. 54-75, and it is difficult to see how a probans can be a feature of the paksa as thus under. stood. As if to obviate this difficulty the account is preceded by an elaborate treatm. ent of the question as to what constitutes the thing-to be-inferred (anumeya) (vv. 27-51) ---the implication being that this thing too might be called paksa in some sense while there is nothing inherently impossible about a probans being a feature of such a thing. Kumārila's discussion makes it abundantly clear that the thing to be inferred must fulfil two conditions, viz.
(i) that the probans must be a feature of it, and
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
