28. Vikalapa- Siddhe Tasmin Sattetare Sadhye

Commentary

A Dharmi is known sometimes by Pramana, smetimes by Vikalpa (imagination) and sometimes bothe by Viikalpa ad Pramaa 1. Hemachandra writes that a Dhrmi is Pramana siddha as well as Buddhi-siddha 2.

The example of knowledge of a Dharmi by Vikalapa is : “There existas an ominscient being ” The example of kowledge of a Dharmi by Pamana is : “This mountain has fire” The example of knowledge of a Dharami both by Pramaa and Vikalapa is “ Sound is ot eternal ” 3.

×¾ÖÛú»¯Ö×ÃÖ¬¤ê ŸÖ×ô֮ÖË ÃÖÖ¬µÖê II 28II

28. Vikalapa- siddhe tasmin sattetare sadhye

†×ÃŸÖ ÃÖ¾ÖÔ–ÖÖê ®ÖÖ×ÃŸÖ ÜÖ¸Ö×¾ÖÂÖÖÞÖ´ÖË II 29 II

29. Asto sarakmp masti kharaisaam.

______

1. “ ¯ÖÎ×µÖ¬¤Ÿ¾ÖÓ “Ö ¬Ö×´ÖÔÞÖ : Ûúד֟ÖË ¯ÖδÖÖÞÖÖŸÖË, Ûúד־¤Ûú»¯ÖÖŸÖË Ûúד֟ÖË ¯ÖδÖÖÞÖËÓ×¾ÖÛú»¯ÖÖ³ÖµÖÖ´ÖË I” Nyayadipika.

“ ÛúדÖ×¾¤Ûú»¯ÖŸÖ Ûæú¡ÖÖד֟ÖË ¯ÖδÖÖÞÖŸÖ: ÛúÛúÖ×¯Ö ×¾ÖÛú»¯Ö¯ÖδÖÖÞÖÖ³ÖËÓµÖÖ´ÖË I”

Pramananayatattvalokalankara

1.“ ¬Ö´ÖßÔ ¯ÖδÖÖÞÖ×ÃÖ¬¤ : II ²Öã׬¤×ÃÖ¬¤Öê ×¯Ö II Pramana-mimamsa I.2.16.17.“ µÖ£ÖËÓÖ ÃÖ´Ö×ßÖ

2.ÃÖ´Öß־ÖßÖæ¾Öê¤ß ×õÖןָ֬ÛÓ¬Ö¸êµÖÓ ¬Öæ´Ö¬¾Ö•Ö¾ÖŸÖß, ¬¾Ö×®Ö: ¯Ö׸ÞÖ×´ÖÖ®ÖË II”

Pramananayatattavalokalankara III .22

28. When it (Dhrami) is established by Vikalpa, the Sadhya consists of existence and non- existence.

29. The omniscient exists. Horns of the ass do not exist.

Commentary

When we see smoke and infer fire, the object in which the ire is ( e.g. mountain) is known by Pratyakasa Pramaa. But I the case of our belief in the existence and non-existence viz. “ the omniscient exists” or “ Horns of the ass do ot exist ” the Sadhya consisting of existence or non- existence is preceded by our such belief. So these are causes of Vikalpa-siddhi of the Dhrami 1.

¯ÖδÖÖÞÖÖê³ÖµÖ×ÃÖ¬¤ê ŸÖã ÃÖÖ¬µÖ¬Ö´ÖÔ×¾Ö׿Ö™ŸÖÖ II 30 II

30. Pramanobhayasiddhe tu sadhyadharmavisistata.

†×ݮִֵ֮ÖÓ ¤ê¿Ö: ¯Ö׸ÞÖÖ´Öß ¿Ö²¤ ‡×ŸÖ µÖ£ÖÖ II 31 II

31. Agnimanayam desah parinami sabda iti yatha.

30. When ( a Dhrami ) is established by Pramana or by both (i.e. by Pramana and Viokalpa) , it is characterised by having the Dharama as Sadhya.

31. As for example , this place has fire; sound is transient.

Commentary

In a Dhrami which is establihed by Pramana, the Sadhya exists as Dhrama. For example’ we see by pratyakasa a place

______

1. “ ×¾ÖÛú»¯Ö×ÃÖ¬¤Öê µÖ£ÖÖ, ÃÖ¾ÖÔ–Ö : †×ÃŸÖ ÃÖã×®ÖÁÖ“ÖŸÖÖÃÖÓ³Ö¾Ö²ÖÖ¬Ö¯ÖδÖÖÞÖŸ¾ÖÖŸÖË ‡ŸµÖÖ×ß֟¾Öê ÃÖÖ¬µÖê ÃÖ¾ÖÔÁÖ: I †£Ö¾ÖÖ Üָ׾ÖÂÖÖÞÖÓ ®ÖÖ×ßÖß×ŸÖ ®ÖÖ×ß֟¾Öê ÃÖÖ¬µÖê Üָ׾ÖÂÖÖÓÞÖÓ I ÃÖ¾ÖÔ–ÖÖê Ç×ß֟¾Ö×ÃÖ¬¤ê ¯ÖÎÖ›Ë ®Ö ¯ÖΟµÖõÖפ¯ÖδÖÖÞÖ×ÃÖ¬¤ I †×¯Ö ŸÖã ¯ÖΟÖßןִÖÖ¡Ö -×ÃÖ¬¤ ‡×ŸÖ ×¾ÖÛú»¯Ö×ÃÖ¬¤Öê µÖÓ ¬Ö´ÖßÔ I ŸÖ£ÖÖ Üָ׾ÖÂÖÖÞÖ´Ö×¯Ö ®ÖÖ×ß֟¾ÖÖ×ÃÖ¬¤ê : ¯ÖÎÖÝÖË ×¾ÖÛú»¯Ö-×ÃÖ¬¤Ó II” ×¾ÖÛú»¯Ö×ÃÖ¬¤ê ŸÖã ¬Ö×´ÖÔ×ÞÖÔ ÃÖ¢ÖÖÃÖ¢ÖµÖÖê¸ê¾Ö ÃÖÖ¬µÖÖŸ¾Ö×´Ö×ŸÖ ×®ÖµÖ´Ö :I”

Nyayadipika.

countaining fire and the place (which is Dharmi or Paksa) has the Dharma ( or Sadhya) e.g. fire. The example of a Dharmi estabished by Pramana as wel as by Vikalpa is this : sound is transient because it is caused ( by some ). Here sound can be established by Pramana as well as by Vikalpa 1 .

¾µÖÖ¯ŸÖÖî ŸÖã ÃÖÖ¬µÖÓ ¬Ö´ÖÔ ‹¾Ö II 32 II

32. Vyaptau tu sadhyam dharama eva.

†®ÃÖ£ÖËÓÖ ŸÖ¤‘ÖËÓ™®ÖÖŸÖË II 33 II

33. Anyatha tadaghatanat.

33. In universal concomitance’ the Sadhya is only Dharama (and not Dhrami)

1. Otherwise ’ it (i.e. universal cocomitance ) cannot happen.

Commentary

It is not possible to find an univerasal soncomitance seeing smoke that all moutains contain fire 2 . So in such a case the Sadhya viz the fire is only Dharama and not Dharmi or Pakasa viz. Mountain. In other words, the universa concomitance is between fire and smoke but not between smoke ad the object which is the abode of fire. So a distinction should be made in this case by saying that here the Sadhya is only a Dharma and not a Dharmi.

ÃÖÖ¬µÖ¬Ö´ÖÖÔ¬ÖÖ¸üÃÖÓ¤êüÆüÖ¯Ö­ÖÖê¤üÖµÖ Ö´µÖ´ÖÖ­ÖõÖÖ×¯Ö ¯Ö ÖÃµÖ ¾Ö“Ö­Ö´ÖË II 34 II

1. Sadhyadhraadharasandehapanodya gamyamanasyapi paksaya vachanama.

______

1. ‘ ŸÖ¡Ö ¯ÖÏ´ÖÖ Ö×ÃÖ¬¤üÖê ¬Ö´Öá µÖ£ÖÖ ¬Öæ´Ö¾ÖŸ¾ÖÖ¤üÛ ­Ö´ÖŸ¾ÖÓ ÃÖÖ¬µÖê ¯Ö¾ÖÔŸÖ: Ö»Öã ¯ÖÏŸÖµÖ Öê ÖÖ­Öã³ÖËÓæµÖŸÖê I. . . ˆ³ÖµÖ×ÃÖ¬¤üÖê ¬Ö´Öá µÖ£ÖÖ ¿²¤üÖê ¯Ö׸ü ÖÖ´Öß éúŸÖ úŸ¾ÖÖŸÖË ‡ŸµÖ¡Ö ¿Ö²¤ü : ”

Nyay-dipika.

1. “ ®Ö ×Æ ¬Öã´Ö¤¿ÖÔ®ÖÖŸÖË ÃÖ¾ÖÔ¡Ö ¯Ö¾ÖÔŸÖÖê ×ݮִÖÖ×®Ö×ŸÖ ¾µÖÖׯŸÖ: ¿ÖŒµÖÖ Ûú¢ÖãÔ ¯ÖδÖÖ×¾Ö¸Ö¬ÖÖŸÖË II”

Prameyaratnamala

ÃÖÖ¬µÖ¬Ö×´ÖÔ×ÞÖ ÃÖÖ¬Ö®Ö¬Ö´ÖÖÔ×¾ÖÖ¬Ö®ÖÖµÖ ¯ÖõÖ´ÖÖêÔ¯ÖÃÖÓÆÖ¸¾ÖŸÖË II 35 II

1. Sadhyadhrmini sadhanadharmavavodhanaya paksadharamopasamharavat.

ÛúÖê ¾ÖÖ ×¡Ö¬ÖÖ ÆêŸÖã´ÖæÛËŸ¾ÖÖ ÃÖ´Ö£ÖÔµÖ´ÖÖ®ÖÖê ®Ö ¯ÖõÖµÖ×ŸÖ II 36 II

1. Ko va tridha hetumuktava. Smarthayamao na paksayati .

34. The Paksa is used though it is understood (from Pratyaksa ) to dispel doubts regarding the abode of Sadhya when it is a Dharma.

35. As for example’ Upanaya is used to exaplain the Dhrama of Sadhana (the midle ternm’ sign or mark ) in the Dharmi containing Sadhya.

36. Is there any one who does not use a Paksa to substantiate after mentioning the three kinds of Hetu ?

Commentary

It may be urged that in inference’ there is no necessity of a Paksa. For in the case of inference of fire in a mountain by seeing smoke’ the mountain ( Paksa) is establishe dby Pratyaksa. So it is not necessary to edtablish it again by inference (Anumana). It is redunadant to tedtablish b inference’ what we get bt Pratyaksa.

In answer to this’ it is urged that mention of Paksa is necessaary to licalize the Sadhya. Smoke may be in the mountain or in kitchens or in other places. To remove doubts as to where the dmoke exists’ the use of Paksa is necessary. Excluding the Paksa’ we will only get a mention of the abstract realationship between smoke and fire. It may in such a case reduce Anumana to Tarka e.g. ‘ where is this fire which is indicated by smoke? Or it may lead to an absurd inference e.g. existence of fire I lake.

“Some philosoophers hold that the minor term (Paksa) is not an essentiaal part of an inference. But this view accodig to the Jaina‘ is untenable’ it being absoultely necessary to state the minor tem (Paksa ) in the inference 1.”

______

1. Dr Satischandra Vidyabhausan: Nyayavatara.

Siddhasena Divakara has mentioned in his Nyayavatara :

“ It (i.e. Paksa) is to be used here (in an inference for the sake of others) as exhibiting an abode of the reason ( i.e. the middle term caled Hetu)

Otherwise owing to a misconecption as to the abode of reason ( i.g. Paksa or the minor term) as intended by the disputant his reason (Hetu or the middle term) may appear to his opponent as absurd.

A man who has come to behold the excellence of an archer will have to behold the oppsite ot it if the archer hits without fixing an aim 1.

Dr Vidyabhausana has amplified this as below:

“ If any disputant does not explicitly state the mnor term (Paksa ) his reason might be misunderstood by his opponent e.g.

1. This hill (the minor term ) is full of fire ( the major therm;)

1. Because it is full of smoke ( the middle term).

The above inference’ if the minor term is omitted’ will assume the following form:-

1. Full of fire ( the major term)

1. because full of smoke ( the middle term)

Here the opponent might not at once recollect any abode or place ( the minor term’ Paksa) in which the fire and smoke abide in union, and might mistake a lake for such an abode. In such a case the whole argument will be misunderstood

Just as clever archer, with a view to preventing his arrow afrom going to a wron direction, fixes his aim before hitting, so a

______

1. “ ŸÖŸ¯ÖεÖÖêÝÖÖê ¡Ö ÛúŸ¾µÖÖêÔ ÆêŸÖÖêÝÖÖêÔ“Ö¸¤ß¯ÖÛú : I”

“ †®µÖ£ÖËÓÖ ¾ÖÖ¤Ë µÖ׳֯ÖÎêŸÖÆêŸÖæÝÖÖê“Ö¸´ÖÖê×ÆŸÖ :I

¯ÖΟµÖÖµÖõֳ־Öꬤê×¾ÖÔ¹ý¬¤¸ê×ÛúŸÖÖê µÖ£ÖÖ I

¬ÖÖ®ÖãÂÛúÝÖãÞÖÃÖÓ¯ÖÎê×õÖ •Ö®ÖÃµÖ ¯Ö׸׾֬ŸÖ : I

¬ÖÖ®ÖãÂÛú×ãµÖÕ ×¾Ö®ÖÖ »ÖõµÖ×®Ö¤Ô¿Ö®ÖÝÖãÞÖêŸÖ¸Öî II” Nyayavatara 14-16

skilful didputant, in order to avoid beig misundersood, should in stating an inference mention the minor term (Paksa ) with which the major term (Sadhya) and the middle term ( Hetu are ) both connected.

In Pramanaayatattvalokalankara the same is mentioned as follows: “ The use of Paksa must be adopted as we always mention as conslusion by word expressing Dharmi ()Paksa or the minor term e.g. mountain Dharma ( Sadhya or the major term e.g. fire and Hetu ( the middle term ) who will not agree to the use of Paksa in support of the Sadhaa ( the middle term) after mentioning the three varieties of the same 1.

The three kinds of Hetu will be described ater on

Hemachandra has mentioned the subject of this aphorism in a similar language 2.

‹ŸÖ«µÖ´Öê¾ÖÖ®Öæ´ÖÖ®ÖÖ›Ó ®ÖÖ¤ÖƸÞÖ´ÖË II37 II

1. Etaddvayameanumananagam noddaharanam.

1. These two only are the limbs of Anumana, and not the Udaharana.

Commentary

In Prameyaratnamala, it is mentioned that this Aphorism refutes the view of the Sankhya philosophy which holds thath Anumana has three limbs viz. Pakasa, Hetu and Dritanata or Udaharana, that of the Mimamsa phiosohy according to which there are four limbs of Anumana viz. Pratijna, Hetu, Udaharana and Urpaaya and that of the Nyaya-vaisesika philosophies which hold

______

1. “ ÃÖÖ¬µÖÃµÖ ¯ÖÏןÖׯֵ֟֬ÖÙ´ÖÆêüŸÖÖê¹ý¯ÖÃÖÓÆüÖ¸ü¾Ö“Ö­ÖŸÖË ¯Ö Ö¯ÖϵÖÖê ÖÖê ¯µÖ¾Ö¿µÖ´ÖÖÁÖ×µÖŸÖ¾µÖ :” - סÖ×¾Ö¬ÖÓ ÃÖÖ¬Ö­Ö´Ö׳֬ÖÖµÖî¾Ö ŸÖ¡ÖÃÖ´Ö£ÖÔ­ÖÓ -×¾Ö¤ü¬ÖÖ­Ö : ú: Ö»Öã ­Ö ¯Ö Ö¯ÖϵÖÖê Ö´ÖÓ Öß ãú¸üŸÖê I” [ ¯ÖÏ´ÖÖ Ö­ÖµÖŸÖŸ¾ÖÖ»ÖÖê úÖ»ÖÓ úÖ¸ü : 3/24/25]

2. “ ÝÖ´µÖ´ÖÖ®ÖŸ¾Öê ×¯Ö ÃÖÖ¬µÖ¬Ö´ÖÖÔ-¬ÖÖ¸ ÃÖ®¤êƯ֮ÖÖê¤ÖµÖ ¬Ö×´ÖÔÞÖ ¯ÖõÖ¬Ö´ÖÖêÔ¯ÖÃÖÓÆÖ¸ I ” Pramana-mimamsa 2.1.8.

that there are five limbs of Anumana viz. Pratijana, Hetu, Udaharana, Upanaya and Nigamana 1.

It may be urged that the words “ and not the Udaharana ” are redundant in this aphorism , as the word ‘ oy’ in the aphorism is sufficednt for the urpose The commentator Anatavirya says that these words have been used to refute the view of other 2.

In the Nyaya philosophy of Gautama, five limbs of sylogism are recognised. These are Pratijana ( proposition), Hetu Udaharana ( illustration), Upanaya ( application ) and Nigamana (conclsion). The following is an example:-

1. This hill is full of fire (Pratijana)

1. Because it is full of smoke (Hetu)

1. Whatever is full of smoke is full of fire, as a kitchen ( Dristanta)

1. So this hill full of smoke. (Upanaya)

1. Therefore this hill is full of fire. (Nigamana)

According to the view of Jain logivians as propounded in Parikasmukham, only Paksa and Hetu are the two limbs of Anumana.

In Pramananayatattvalokalankara, it is mentioned “ Inference derived rom the speech of another has only two parts viz. Paksa and Hetu and not Dristanta etc 3.

______

1. “ ®Ö®Öã ³Ö¾ÖŸÖæ ¯ÖõÖ¯ÖεÖÖêÝÖß֣ÖÖ×¯Ö ¯ÖõÖÆêŸÖ㦤®ŸÖ³Ö¤ê®Ö ¡µÖ¾ÖµÖµÖ¾Ö´Ö®Öã´ÖÖ®Ö×´Ö×ŸÖ ÃÖÖÓܵÖ: I ¯ÖÎן֖ÖÖÆêŸÖæ¤ÖƸÞÖÖê¯ÖµÖ³Ö¤ê®Ö “ÖŸÖã¸×¾ÖµÖןÖ×ŸÖ ´Öß´ÖÖÓÃÖÛú : I ¯ÖÎן֖ÖÖÆêŸÖã¤ÖƸÞÖÖê¯Ö®ÖµÖ×®ÖÝÖ´Ö®Ö³Öê¤ÖŸÖË ¯ÖÓ“ÖÖ¾ÖµÖ¾Ö×´Ö×ŸÖ µÖÖêÝÖ: I ŸÖ®´ÖŸÖ´Ö¯ÖÖÛãú¾ÖÔ®ÖË Ã¾Ö´ÖŸÖ×ÃÖ¬¤´ÖµÖ¾Ö¾¤µÖ´Öê¾ÖÖê¯Ö¤¿ÖÔµÖ¬®®ÖÖÆ I” Prameyaratnamala.

2. “ ‹êÛúÖ¸êÞÖËî ¾ÖÖê¤ÆÖ¸ÞÖ×¾Ö¾µÖ¾Ö“”ê¤ê ×ÃÖ¬¤ê ×¯Ö ¯Ö¸´ÖŸÖ׸ÖÃÖÖ£ÖÔ ¯Öã®Ö®ÖÖÔê ÖƸ×ÞŸµÖÖÛËŸÖË´Ö I”

Prameyratnamala.

1. “ ¯ÖõÖÆêŸÖã¾Ö“Ö®Ö»ÖõÖÞ´ÖµÖ¾ÖµÖ¾Ö¾¤µÖ´Öê¾Ö ¯Ö¸¯ÖÎן֢֯ÖÖÓ¸ÓÝÖ ®Ö §Â™Ö®ŸÖÖ×¾Ö¤¾Ö“Ö®Ö´ÖË I

Pra,amamauatattva;pla;amlara III .28

This aphorism is amplieifed in the aphorisma which follow.

®Ö ×Æ ŸÖŸÖË ÃÖÖ¬µÖ¯ÖÎן֯֟µÖÖ›Ó ŸÖ¡Ö µÖ£ÖËÓÖŒŸÖÆêŸÖÖê¸ê ¾µÖÖ¯ÖÖ¸ÖŸÖË II38 II

38. Na hi tat sadhyapratipatyaangam tatra yathoktahetoreve vayaaparat.

ŸÖ¤ü×¾Ö­ÖÖ³ÖÖ¾Ö×­ÖÁÖ“ÖµÖÖ£ÖÕ ¾ÖÖ ×¾Ö¯Ö Öê ²ÖÖ¬Ö úÖ¤êü¾Ö ŸÖ¡Ö ×ÃÖ¬¤êü : II 39 II

1. Tadavinabhavanischayaratham va vipakse vadhakadeva tat-siddheh.

38 . That (Udaharana) is not the cause of understanding the Sadhya because, the aforesaid Hetu works there ( as the cause)

39. (That Udaharana ) also is ( not necessary ) for establishing the universal concomitance ( with the Sadhya) . That ( universal cocomitance ) is established form the oppsotion ot its adevese ( character).

Commentary

When we give the example of a kitchen to illustrate universal concomitance’ where thaer is smoke, there is fire’, we can not say thaat the illustration is of any help in the undrsatdning of the Sadhya viz. Fire for the knowledge of fire is derived from the Hertu ( viz ‘Because it is full of smoke’) The Udaharana there fore is not a part of inference. It cannot also be said that Udaharana cause a belief of universal concomitance when we get proof opposed to its adevese character.

¾µÖ׌ŸÖ¹ý¯ÖÓ “Ö ×®Ö¤¿ÖÔ®Ö ÃÖÖ´ÖÖ®µÖê®Ö ŸÖã ¾µÖÖׯŸÖß֡ÖÖׯÖ

ŸÖ×¾¤¯ÖÎן֢֯ÖÖ¸¾Ö®Ö¾ÖãÖÖ®ÖÓ ÃµÖÖŸÖË ¦¤Â™Ö®ŸÖÖ®ŸÖ¸Ö¯ÖêõÖÞÖÖŸÖË II 40 II

1. This aphorism in another Vyaktirupam cha nidarsanam samayean tu yaptistatrapi tadvipatipattavanavasthanam sayt drstantantarapeksanat.

40. A Udaharana desals only with particular but Vyaptideals with universal concomitance. If that is not understood, the fault of Anavastha wilarise, as recousse to another example will have to be made.

The existence of smoke in a kitchen is a particular intaance of the concomitance of smoke and fire. It cannot establish universal concomitance of smoke and fire. If we doubt the example of the kitchen, another example will have to be cited and even if the latter again be disbelieve, a third illustaration will be necessary. So the Udaharana canot be said to be the cause of knowledge of universal concmitance. At the utmost it can be said to yield a knowledge of concomitance in a particualr instance . The fault of Anavastah ( no final settlement ) arises when we seek on einstance after another to coame at the idea of universal soncomitance from particular instances.

language is gice in the pramananayatattvalokalankara III.36 1

®ÖÖ×¯Ö ¾µÖÖׯŸÖôָÞÖÖ£ÖÔ ŸÖ£ÖÖ×¾Ö‘ÖÆêŸÖã¯ÖεÖÖêÝÖÖ¤ê¾Ö ŸÖŸÖËôÖéŸÖê II 41 II

1. Napi vyapti- smaranartham tathavidhahetuprayogadevatasmiriteh.

41. (This Udahatana ) cannot remind the universal concomitance, because such a reminiscence arises form the use of Hetu of that kind ( which is connected with previously understood knowledge of the connection between smoke ad fire).

Commetary

The knowledge of realationship between Sadhya and Sadhana (e.g.fire and smoke) must exist before there can be any Anumaa. Udaharana gies an example of this relatioship or Vyatpti ( universal concomitance ) and only tends to establlish the validity of Vyapti. It cannot be said to be of any ral help in reminding us about the universal concomitance. This Vyapti is reminded by the Hetu “ where there is smoke, there is fire” and not by the Udaharana viz “ As n the kitchen” only a thing which had been

______

1. “ ×­ÖµÖŸÖî ú×¾Ö¿ÖêÂÖþֳÖÖ¾Öê “Ö §ü™üÖ­ŸÖê ÃÖÖ ú»µÖê­Ö ¾µÖÖ¯ŸÖê¸üµÖÖê ÖŸÖÖê ×¾Ö¯ÖÏן֢֯ÖÖî ÃÖŸµÖÖÓ ŸÖ¤ü­ŸÖ¸üÖ¯Öê ÖµÖÖ´Ö×­ÖÛã֟Öê¤ãÔüÙ­Ö¾ÖÖ¸ü : ÃÖ´Ö¾ÖŸÖÖ : I”

expeerienced before ca be remembered so universa cocomitance ca be reminded only by the Hetu and not by hundreds of examples 1 37 This is also mentioned in Pramananayatattvalokalankara III 37 2.

ŸÖŸÖ˯ָü´Ö׳֬ÖßµÖ´ÖÖ­ÖÓ ÃÖÖ¬µÖ¬ÖÙ´Ö× Ö ÃÖÖ¬µÖÃÖÖ¬Ö­Öê ÃÖ­¤êüÆüÆüµÖÖ×ŸÖ II 42 II

1. Tatparamabhidhiyamanam sadhyadharmini sadhyasadhane sandehyati.

42. This (Udaharana ) only raises a doubt in establishing Sadhya (e.g. fire) in the Dharami ( e.g. mountain) containing Sadhya ( e.g. fire).

Commentary

Undaharana is not the cause of univerwal saocomitance. On the contrary, it raise sa doubt whether firwe is rally in themountain or not for we are given an illustration where fire may exist without the mountain which we see. It is after we remember the universal concomitance throught Heut that we come to the conclusion the the mountain is full of fire. Udaharana there fore is not an essential part of inference.

ÛãúŸÖÖê ®µÖ£ÖÖê¯Ö®ÖµÖ×®ÖÝÖ´Ö®Öê II43 II

43 Kitjpjmuatjp[amaua- mogamane.

1. Otherwise why should there be Upanaya and Nigamana ?

Commentary

We have alrready mentioned the five parts of the inference as accepted in the Nyaya philosophy of Gautama. The fourth and the fifith parts are Upaaya and Nigamana, viz ‘ So tis this hill full of smoke ‘ ( Upnaya ) ad “ Therefore this hill is full of

______

1. “ ÝÖéÆߟÖÃÖ´²Ö®¬ÖÃµÖ ÆêŸÖã¯ÖΤ¿ÖÔ®Öê®Öî¾Ö ¾µÖÖׯŸÖ×ÃÖ¬¤¸ÝÖéÆߟִ²Ö®¬ÖÃµÖ §Â™Ö®ŸÖ ¿ÖŸÖê®ÖÖ×¯Ö ®Ö ŸÖŸÃ´Ö¸ÞÖ®Öã³Öæ××¾ÖÂÖµÖÖŸ¾ÖÖŸÖË Ã´Ö¸ÞÖõÖê×ŸÖ ³ÖÖ¾Ö : I prameyaratnamala.

2. “ ®ÖÖ¯µÖ×¾Ö®ÖÖ³ÖÖ¾ÖôÖéŸÖµÖê ¯ÖÎן֮֯®ÖÖ´ÖŸÖê: ¯ÖõÖÆêŸÖæ -¯ÖΤ¿ÖÔ®Öê®Öî¾Ö ŸÖŸÖ¯ÖÎ×ÃÖ¬¤ê : I”

fire (Nigamana ) Manikyanandi urges that acceptiance of these two prsupposes some doubt about the existence of fire in the mountain owing to the use of the Udaharana. Otherwise what is the use of having these two parts Upanya and Nigamana ?

The modern syllogism of European philosophy followig the same of Aristotle is of three propositions.

1.All things which are full of smoke are full of fire,

2.This mountain is full of smoke,

3.Therefore this mountain is full of fire

It will be seen that in the first proposition, Vyapti or universal concomitance is laid down . in the second proposition the Hetu is mentioned and in the third the Pratijana is given. The Upanaya, Nigamana an Dristanta are not acepted in modern syllogism. Really speaking, the upanaya and Nigamana

( which will be defined in aphorisms 50 and 51 which follow) are merely repetitions of what is satted in the Pratijna and Hetu. So these are not necessary parts of Anumana. This is aide dow in the next aphorism.

®Ö ¾Ö ŸÖê ŸÖ¤ÓÝÖê I ÃÖÖ¬µÖ¬Ö×´ÖÔ×ÞÖ ÆêŸÖãÃÖÖ¬µÖµÖÖê¾ÖÔ“Ö®ÖÖ¤ê¾ÖÖÃÖÓ¿ÖµÖÖ¤Ë II 44 II

44. Na cha te tadangaae. Sadhyadharmini hetu- sadhyayaorvachandadevasamsayat.

44. These ( Upanaya and Nigamana ) are not parts of that (Anumana ) because by emtioning the Sadhya and the Hetu in the Dhrami containing the Sadhya, doubt exists.

Commentary

When we mention the Hetu (the middle term e.g. smoke) ad the Sadhya ( the major term e.g. fire ) in the Dharmi ( e.g. mountain ) which contains the Sadhya ( e.g. fire ) we have no kind of doubt in the kowledge of the Sadhya (e.g. fire ) or in other words the existaence of the Hetu ( smoke ) and Sadhya ( fire ) is ascetained by their mention without there being any kind of doubt . So it is redudat to repeat them again in the form

Of Upanaya ad Nigamana. So two parts should not be considered as necessary limbs of Upamana.

“ There is not power of Upanaya and Nigamana to produce a knowledge in the mind of others as this kowledge arises from the use of the Paksa and the Hetu “ Pramanayaatattvaloka lankara. III 40

ÃÖ´Ö£ÖÔ®ÖÓ ¾ÖÖ ¾Ö¸Ó ÆêŸÖã¹ý¯Ö´Ö®Öã´ÖÖ®ÖÖ¾ÖµÖÖ¾ÖÖê ¾ÖÖ ÃŸÖã

ÃÖÖ¬µÖê ŸÖ¤ãü¯ÖµÖÖ ÖÖŸÖË II 45 II

45. Samarathama va a carama heturupamanaumanavayavo vahstu sadhye tadupayogat.

45. (The establishement e.g. fire ) is got from the support of the limb of Anumana named Hetu ( e.g. smoke ) as this ( Hetu e.g. smoke ) is connected with the Sadhya (e.g. fire )

Commentary

The purport of this aphorism is that that there is no necessity of the parts of Anumana, Dristana, Upanaya and Nigamana be cause the Sadhya ( e.g. fire ) is established by hetu ( e.g. smoke). As we have knowledge of the sadhya without the help of Dristanta, Upanya and Nigamana these cannot be said to be essetial parts of Anumana.

When faults of Hetu are dipelled ad it si supported, it sis said t have samrathana. If you say that that which is ot support should be given to the same, we reply that is is the very Hertu which is a part of Anumana, which establises the Sadhya and it is not at all necessary to gie any other support by mentioning Udharana etc. first 1

1. “ × ú“ÖÖ×Ö¬ÖÖµÖÖ×¯Ö §ü™üÖ­ŸÖÖפü ú ÃÖ´Ö£ÖÔ´Ö¾Ö¿µÖÓ ¾ÖŒŸÖ¾µÖ´ÖË †ÃÖ´ÖÙ£ÖŸÖõÖÖ †ÆêüŸÖ㟾ÖÖ¡Ö ‡×ŸÖ ; ŸÖ¤êü¾Ö ¾Ö¸Óü ÆêüŸÖã¸ü¯Ö´ÖË †­Ö´ÖÖ­ÖÖ¾ÖµÖÖê ¾ÖÖ ÃŸÖã ÃÖÖ¬µÖÖ×ÃÖ¬¤üÖî ŸÖõÖê¾ÖÖµÖÖ Ö úÖ®ÖÖê¤üÖÆü¸ü ÖÖפü ú´ÖË I”

prameyaratnamala

Pramananayatattvaalokalankara metions the same in another language 1 .

¾ÖÖ»Ö¾µÖã´ÖŸ¯ÖŸµÖ£ÖÔ ŸÖ¢¸µÖÖê¯ÖÝÖ´Öê ¿ÖÖÃ¡Ö ‹¾ÖÖÃÖÖî

®Ö ¾ÖÖ¤ê’û †®Öã¯ÖµÖÖêÝÖÖŸÖË II46 II

46. Balavyautpattyartham tattrayopagame sastra evasau na vade, anuayogat

46. These (Dristanta ) etc may be for understanding of those who have little knowledge and for this purpose may be discussed only in the Sastra, but these are quite unfit to be sused in logical discuttions.

Commentary

When we try to teach others whio have no full knowledge of inference we may use Dristanta etc. ad for this purpose in works on logic. We may treat this subject. Such words may be of use to sutdents. But lgival discussions between trained men , these are useless.

“ The statemant of Paksa . . . . and Hetu are aloone needed in ad inference at the instance of another. It is obvious that the true basis of Anumana is always the force of Vyapti (ligical connectuon) so that the moment this realtionship is asserted by mentioning the Sadhana, smoke and the like mind is imedatrely led to that which is inseparably connected there with, wand discovers the Sadhya Upanaya and Nigamana besides serving no useful prupose, are also objectiobable as pure reprtition of what is already stated in the Pratijana and Hetu; and necessary to cite an actual intstance of Veyapti ( logical cnnection ) in a Vitaragakatha (lecture ot a pupil to enabe) little chiledren to familliarize themselves with the basis of inference it is bad rhetoric to do so in the course of a

______

1.“ ÃÖ´Ö£ÖÔ´Öê¾Ö ¾Ö¸Ó ¯Öθ¯ÖÎן֯֟µÖÓÝÖ´ÖÖŸÖÖÓ ŸÖ®ŸÖ¸êÞÖ ¦¤Â™Ö®ŸÖפ¯ÖεÖÖÝÖê ×¯Ö ŸÖ¤¤ËÃÖÓ³Ö¾ÖÖŸÖË

Pramanaaytattvalokalakara III 41.

Vijigisukataha ( logial discussion with a vleve and presumabley learned oppnent. And after all Udharana only tends to establish the validity of Vyapti and may be useful in showing the necessary ralationship between the Sdhana and its Sadhya; it is of no real help in Anumana which presupposes the knowedge of this realtionship.

The modern syllogism of three steps or propolsitions, as they are called is also open to bjection for sijilar resons. It is the cuminatin f a highly elaborate system of ratiocination it is true’ but is it no less true that the system of which it is the outcome is not a naural but a higly artifical one. The practica value modern oic’ ad secenc’ is to be judege from the fact that its infrrentila processes, though suitable to a cetai extent, for the purposes of the school room are never actually resorted to by men not even lawyers, philosophers and logians – in their dauly life, nor can they be carried out without first beinging the current of thought from its natural cahnnel and forcing it into the artifical and firg frame –work of a Aritotelian syllogism.

The syllogism that answers the practical requrements of life and is natural to rationam mind, them, consists of two tand aonly two steps Pratijana and Hetu 1 .

§Â™Ö®ŸÖÖê ¾¤ê¬ÖÖÞ †®¾ÖµÖµÖ¾µÖןָêÛú³Öê¤ÖŸÖË II 47 II

47. Draistanto devdha anvayaatirekabhaedat.

47. The Dristanta is of two kinds , being with Anvaya and Vyatireka.

Commentary

It has been mentioned that Dristanta Upanaya and Nigamana are not parts or Anumana. But in the previous aphorism it was stated that these may be discussed in Sadtras

______

1.The Science of thought by C R Jain Pp 42 43 Foot note .

For teaching students. So in this and thenext two aphorismss the two kinds of Dristandta, and in aphorisma 50ad 51 Upanaya and Nigamna arae explained.

ÃÖÖ¬µÖ¾µÖÖ¯ŸÖÓ ÃÖÖ¬Ö­ÖÓ µÖ¡Ö ¯ÖϤü¿µÖÔŸÖê ÃÖÖ ­¾ÖµÖ§ü™üÖ­ŸÖ : II 48 II

48. Sadhyavayaptm sadhanam yatra pradarsyate sohnvayadristantah.