Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1

Author(s): Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 16

INTRODUCTION
5
short of an enigma that this innovation of the Jaina logicians did not evoke a reply from Dharmakirti. We have discussed the implications of antaroyapti in our elucidation of verse 20. If antarvyapti is understood to maintain that the concomitance of the probans with the probandum is integral to the constitution of the terms, this will not be any innovation. Dharmakirti lays exclusive stress on the fact that the relation of concomitance is essentially bound up with the nature of the probans. The probans cannot exist without the probandum by virtue of its very constitution. The concept of internal concomitance (antarvyāpti) is a paraphrasis of this svabha vapratibandha.1
The unitary characteristic of the probans (incompatibility with the contradictory of the probandum as proposed by the Jaina logicians) seems to be an improvement. It is noteworthy that Siddhasena refers to both these concepts, namely, antarvyapti and anyathānupapannatva as sponsored by previous Masters of logic and as enunciated by others." It is apparent that these amendments are not original creations of Siddhasena who rather sets his seal of approval on them.
For the first time we find in the Tattvasamgraha and the Panjika a criticism of the unitary character of the probans 'incompatibility with the contradictory of the probandum'. A number of extracts have been quoted from Patrasvamin who criticised the triple-character of the probans enunciated by Dignaga and elucidated by Dharmakirti. Both the forceful language and the logical cogency of the arguments of Pātrasvamin are arresting. He has proved with convincing logic that the triple-character does not necessarily entail the concept of universal concomitance of the probans with the probandum and the lack of the latter reduces the triple-character to an irrational inflation.4 Dharmakirti has added a qualifying restriction (eva) to each character in order to save them from undesirable extension to fallacious instances. To be fair to Dignaga and Dharmakirti it must be endorsed that the triplecharacter is intended to emphasize the element of necessary concomitance. The Jaina logician seems to have secured greater clarity and cogency by his insistence on the unitary character. Śantarakṣita and Kamalasila have shown that though necessary concomitance is the essential characteristic of the probans it is not alone sufficient to bring
1. svabhavapratibandhe hi saty artho 'rtham gamayet. Nyayabindu, 2. 19. 2. Nyayavatāra, 22.
3. nyāyavido viduḥ. Ibid, 20; and iritam. Ibid, 22.
4. Tattvasamgraha & Pañjikā, Anuman aparikṣā, verses 1363-1428.
5. trairupyam punar lingasyanumeye sattvam eva sapaksa eva sattvam, asapakşe casattvam eva niscitam. Nyayabindu. 2.5 (p. 91).