Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1

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

Page 92

SYLLOGISTIC INFERENCE
81
existence of smoke. The extension of fire is much greater than that of smoke since we see that fire exists in a red-hot iron ball or electric bulb without smoke. Smoke and fire can be totally coincident if fire is associated with a carbohydrate substance. But such association is not universal. We cannot infer smoke from fire though we can infer fire from smoke. The sphere of smoke is included in the sphere of fire which has greater extension. So the relation of concomitance may be a case of partial coincidence as exemplified by smoke and fire and total coincidence as seen in the case of impermanence and the property of being an effect. This is called concomitance in co-equal extension (samavyāpti) and the other is called one of an unequal extension (vişamavyāpti).
In formal logic the rule that the middle term (probans) must be distributed (taken in its entire extent), though not the major, is the rule based on the recognition of this unequal concomita nce. Smoke logically determines fire but not vice-versa.
An example need not be cited for the conviction of a man whose memory of the necessary concomitance is quite fresh and living. But when his menory is revived after temporary lapse an example will be only an otiose appendix. This objection is prelude to the next karika.
Text antarvyāptyaiva sādhyasya siddher bahir uda hștiḥ / vyartha syat tadasadbháve' py evain nyāyavido viduḥ ||
Translation “The establishment of the probandum is secured exclusively by internal concomitance and its citation outside (the subject) will be useless and such will also be the case if (the said concomitance) will be absent (or unknown). Such is the considered verdict of the adepts in logic.” ... (XX)
Elucidation The problem can be elucidated by a poser. Is the example called in requisition to bring home the necessary concomitance and what will be its service after the recollection of the same ? When the concomitance of the probans and the probandum is remembered, the example will have no use for the person, and if it is cited to help a respondent who is ignorant of their concomitance, the example will be of no help. As we have said in our discussion under the preceding verse that the observation of co-existence of the probans and the probandum in an example does not give the knowledge of the necessity of this co-presence, so the citation of an example will be entirely useless to such a person
6