________________
regarding the types of inference known as tādātmya amongst the Buddhists, mäträ mongst the Samkhyas, the Vyapaka amongst the Jainas and Sambhava by the Pauranikas are the Buddhists. The Samkhyas have been referred to secondarily by Vacaspati in this connection1 and the Jainas have been ommited altogether.
We can safely conclude from what has been said above that:
(i) The Jaina logicians have made a major contribution to Indian logic by pointing out that it is not only simultaniety (sähacarya) between the proban and the probandum which leads to valid inference but it is also fixed order in sucessession (kramabhava) of the proban and probandum which leads to valid inference.
(ii) The Jainas could point out to this new type of hetu because they did not consider Pakṣadharmată (subsistance in the subject) as a necessary condititon of 'hetu'. It was in fact Udyotakara who by his shrewd interpretation of the illustration of inference given by Vätsyāyana impliedly insisted on Pakṣadhamta of hetu even though Vätsyāyana has clearly indicated that objects pertaining to all the three times past, present and the future-can become the object of inference, Udyotakara clearly insisted that the time of the object to be inferred is not relevant. This view of Udyotakara did not find supporter at least amongst the Samkhyas because the Jayamangală continued to insist that the three types of inference are meant for inferring objects pertaining to three times future, past and present respectively. This controversy implied the question of Pakṣadharmată indirectly and the Jainas strongly held the view that Pakṣadharmtā is not the necessary condition of a valid hetu. In an inference of a precedent cause from the effect an object pertaining to the past is inferred, but there is no paks adharmată as in the case of an inference of the cloud from the rains. Similarly when we infer a future object from the present object, as rise of sakata from rise of kṛttikā or one present object from another present object as moon in the sky from the image of moon in the water, pakṣadharmata is not a necessary condition.
It would thus be seen that this attitude of the Jainas could allow them to add a new category of hetu viz. hetu which precedes or succeeds.
(iii) In his times Akalaňka appears to have been impressed by 1. एतेनैव मात्रानिमित्त ' " इत्यपि पराकृतं वेदितव्यम् ।
Tatparyyavṛttiṭikā 1.1.5
तुलसी प्रज्ञा
174
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
