Book Title: Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1
Author(s): Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Previous | Next

Page 107
________________ 96 VAISHALI INSTITUTE RESEARCH BULLETIN NO. I symptoms of the inefficiency of the arguer. If the personal defects of the arguer be occasions of fallacies, there will be no end of the process because the number of personal defects is legion. It may be argued that whatever be the reason of such statements of deficient examples, they fail to carry full conviction. Siddharşi rejoins, if such personal drawbacks be taken into account as logical defects, the defects of speech as of a stammerer should be entitled to consideration. We may observe that this contention of Siddharşi is more ingeneous than convincing. The defective examples are necessarily cases of fallacious reasons. If the probanses employed be correct and possessed of necessary concomitance, they would not be liable to censure. Moreover, an example is needed for the demonstration of the necessary concomitance as has been stated by Hemacandra : 'An example is the locus of the observation of necessary concomitance'. The defects of example are thus derived from fallacious reasons and they serve to bring home the lack of necessary concomitance for the correction of the erring arguer. Now the fallacies of examples in respect of concomitance in difference are going to be treated in the next verse. Text vaid harmyepátra drstāntadoşā nyāyavidíritaḥ / sādhyasadhanayugmanām anivștteśca samśayāt // Translation "The fallacies of example based on dissimilarity (concomitance in difference) have been enunciated by experts on logic as consisting of the instances lacking in absence of the probandum, the probans and both and also when such absence is subject to doubt." ... (XXV) Elucidation In negative concomitance an example is cited to show that the absence of the probandum involves the absence of the probans. If the example cited is fouud to lack or doubted to lack in the absence of the probandum, or the probans, or both it will be fallacious since it will fail to prove that the probans cited in the main argument is possessed of necessary concomitance with the probandum. As the examples given in the commentary are of controversial nature and not intelligible to the average student of logic who has not cultivated the different systems of philosophy we propose to give the treatment of this topic with the examples from Hemacandra's Pramanamimamsa. The commentator Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary.org

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414