Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1

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

Page 81

70
VAISHALI INSTITUTE RESEARCH BULLETIN NO. 1
(drstanta); (iv) application (upanaya), (v) conclusion (nig amana) and a corroborating statement (suddhi) attached to each of these five members -the full syllogism thus coming to consist of ten propositions. The number of propositions may be reduced in consideration of the needs of the party to be convinced. If the latter happens to be a person who apprehends the subject, fully remembers the necessary concomitance and is capable of anticipating other members on account of his training and practice in logical procedure, he is in a position to comprehend the conclusion without further aid For such a person the statement of the probans only will serve the purpose of the syllogistic argument. To cite a concrete example, the single minor premise, "The hill is possessed of smoke' will suffice to drive home the conclusion The hill is possessed of fire' without the citation of other statements which are usually parts of syllogism. The sufficiency of the abridged syollogism has been noted by Dharmakirti.' For the sake of facilitating the arrival at the conclusion of the interlocutor who has not previous conviction of necessary concomitance of the probans and the probandum on the basis of essential identity or casual relation from experience of their incidence in concrete cases, three facts are set forth by way of example in the syllogism But so far as the adepts and knowledgeable persons are concerned, the statement of the probans alone will be sufficient to ineet the end. The commentator reproduces the argument of Dharmakirti in defence of the fast sta tement of Siddhasena Diva kara.
But if the person to be convinced happens to be a tyro and as such requires to be posted in the niceties of the logical apparatus, the statement of the full-fledged syllogism becomes imperative. Thus if he has not understood the subject (minor term) and the proposition mooted for proof like the proposition in an Euclidean theorem, the statement of the subject in the proposition becomes a necessity. And if the necessary concomitance is not remembered, the illustration is to be stated for the realization of the cogency of the probans stated in the second member. And if again the party concerned has not the ability to apply the concomitant probans to the subject, such application is stated as the fourth member for helping his understanding. And if further he seems to waver about the upshot, the conclusion is stated to resolve the hurdle. This is the justification of the five propositions stated as necessary members of a syllogism in the Nyāyasūtra.?
1. tadbhāva-hetubhāvau hi drstānte tadavedinah /
khyāpyete, viduşām vācyo hetur eva hi kevalaḥ // Promāņavārtika, 3. 29. 2. Ibid., 1.1.32.