________________
Society, Epistemology and Logic in Indian Tradition
120
Ācārya Māņikyanandin clarifies that there are two types of avinābhāva : saha-avinābhāva and krama-avinābhāva. 7 Kāraņa, kārya, pūrvacara and uttaracara hetus are found valid because of their krama-avinābhāva and sahacara hetu is found valid because of its saha-avinābhāva. In this way the concept of vyāpti has also been developed by the Jaina logicians. It shows their logical acumen.
Right from Akalarka down to Yaśovijaya almost all the Jaina logicians have accepted the validity of aforesaid four new probans (hetus).
Philosophers of other systems do not consider a cause as hetu, because cause is possible even without its effects, therefore it is not a perfect indicator of the effect. The Jaina logicians reply this question that where it is possible to ascertain that all other causes are also cooperating and there is no hindrance in its capability, then alone the cause can be the perfect indicator of effect. We can give examples to support their thinking as - milk is sweet, because sugar has been added to it, balloon will fly up because hydrogen gas has been filled up. If a cause is capable to make an effect and it is devoid of hindrance then it may be a valid probans, but in the respect of definition of probans as propounded by the Jaina logicians that probans never remains in the absence of effect, contradicts in the case of kāraṇa hetu, because kāraṇa hetu remains even in the absence of effect. In purvacara hetu also the same situation is happened. When a sequence of the incidences is definitive then purvacara and uttaracara probans are useful for a common man. Sahacara probans is also common in our daily SPMK 3.12 sahakramabhāvaniyamo avinābhavaḥ.
