748 () (c) Indian Dis". ctics Vacanaibhibhava (failure of speech or statement) occurs when a speaker realising that his arguments are wrong, tries to avoid the discussion by saying that he has some- thing else todo (—corresponding to viksepa—), or brings into the discussion new arguments not connected with the previous ones (—arthantara—), or looks irritated, angry, conceited or discloses some defect or fault of the oppo- nent which the latter does not like to have disclosed, or looks offended, or shows impatience or distrust and has nothing to say by way of an answer and_ therefore keeps silent, or looks abashed and trembling, or bends his head, or appears as if he were deprived of the faculty of thinking and speaking (—corresponding to apratibliai) Vacanudosa (erroneous speech) can be of nine kinds : (i) speaking at random, (ji) violent expressions of anger etc, (iii) obscurity of expression, when the speaker cannot be understood either by the assembly or by the opponent (aviji@tartha), (iv) lack of proportion, when the expression is either defective or excessive (=nyana, adhika), (v) meaning- less, vyartha—it is of ten kinds : (a) anarthaka, (b) apar- thaka, (c) yukti-hani, (d) sadhya-sama. (e).jati, (f) arthi nupalabdhi, (g) asambaddha (h) anigcita (i) siddha-sadhya, when the probandum is an established fact, (j) speech according to illogical or wrong doctrines (—Compare yukti-viruddha, Sastra-samaya-viruddha). Stbiramati, in his commentary on the Mahdydnibhidharmasarigitisastra tecognises only the first five of these ten and he con- siders the other five as mere explanations of them (1 <6, 2<7, 3<8, 4<9, 5 410); (vi) apriptakiila, when the (eee arguments are not put forward in the proper order indajcy nee of Caraka and Kalatita of Upaya- Z aniscita or aniyata—when someone either attacks an argument that he has already established as his thesis, or establishes as a thesis an argument that he has already attacked, or suddenly changes his ideas (—Compare pratijnantara, pratijna-virodha); (viii) obscurity, (ix) lack of cohesion.*¢Checks in debate 249 Dinnaga (420 A.D.) dropped the section on Nigraha- sthana altogether on the ground that it includes cither such points as must be formulated in a refutatory syllogism or are quite irrelevant. ‘Moreover as regards that which has been said by the ancient masters on logic concerning the points of defeat (nigrahasthana), (these are arguments, that) fall into (the number of) inferences included among (the cases in which) a refutation (must be formulated), or that are rough or illogical; since these arguments are analogous to quibble (chala) they are not mentioned here.”"*1 It was Dharmakirti who did some fresh and original thinking with regard to nigrahasthtinas in his Vadanyaya. The writers of books on Nyaya admitted a net-work of nigraha- sthanas; but Dharmakirti, perhaps for the first time, simplified things by recognising only two—asa@dhanaiiga-vacana (statement of what is non-essential by way of proof or non-statement of what is essential for proof) and adosodbhavana (exposure of a non-existing defect or non-exposure of an existing defect). These are the occasions of censure or the grounds of defeat of the vadin (proponent ) and the prativadin ( opponent ) respectively. Other cases, according to Dharmakirti, are not legitimate ones and as such are not to be deemed nigrahasthanas. ( Asa@dhanatigavacanam adosodbhavanam dvayoh, nigrahasthanam anyat tu na yuktam iti nesyate.— VN., 1. This is quoted and refuted in Tatparya Tika, Nyiya- manjari and other works, both Vedic and Jaina). The terms as@dhanatigavacana and adosodbhavana can be interpreted variously as Dharmakirti himself has shown, ‘Sadhana (understood in the sense of an act) means proving and ariga, necessary condition of it, is the three-fold probans (based on identity, causality —i.e an effect, or non-apprehension), and non-statement of it consists either in the maintain: ing of silence on account of not finding an answer or 1-32250 Indian Dialectics nervousness, or in the non-competency of the probans to Prove the thesis, such an incompetent probans being as good as unstated. A probans is said to be competent, when on its concomitance with the probandum being established, it is capable of proving the presence of the probandum in the subject. This is a nigrahasthina for the vadin (Astidhanariga- vacana=sadhanaitigat+avacana-Non-statement of the probans which is a necessary condition of proof)*? Or s&dhana means the instrument, the aggregate statement of the probans with the triple characteristic; its afiga, compo nent factor is the statement of its presence in the subject and presence in homogeneous cases only or absence alone in heterogeneous cases. Non-statement of any one of these is a nigrahasthana for the vadin, because non-statement of any of these is as good as the non-statement of the very probans and consequently the not establishing of the thesis. ( Sédhantirga+ avacana).45 Or the term can mean statement of the non-component factors of the proof, eg pratijaa (proposition ), upanaya {application), nigamana (conclusion) and so forth in the argu- ment. This is a nigrahasthaina for the vadin as there is state- ment of what is not essential ( astidhantiigatvacana ). The Buddhisis, as is known, recognise only two factors of a syllogism, preferably drsianta, and upanaya.** Or the express- “lon Means the express statement of concomitance in absence (vyatireka) subsequently to the statement of the probans with concomitance in presence (anvaya), or the express statement of the positive concomitance subsequent to the statement of the negative concomitance, though even one wouid suffice iS) Prove the thesis, and when any one of them is known by implication from the other and so its statement is not an essential condition of inference. The statement of such a non- essential condition is a nigrahasthana for the vadin as it is a superfluous statement (astidhantiiga+vacana).*® Or the state- ment of a fallacious probans—asiddha (unreal or unestablished) viruddha (contrary), anaika@ntika (inconclusive)—which is not2 ————_e ee Checks in debate 251 an instrument of proof, is a nigrahasthana for the vadin, since what is not competent is included in the argument. Similarly, the inclusion of fallacious illustrations also is a nigrahasthana since these do not serve to show the relation of the probans with the probandum and as such are incompetent *¢ The essential conditions of an argument are only such matters as are essential for proving the matter under dispute. The statement of matters other than these on the pretext of their being propounded by a particular system—matters which are not desired to be known by the other party—this state- ment being meant just to confuse the other party and not being an essential condition of inference, is a nigrahasthina for the vadin as it is a statement of irrelevant things. Such Statements only serve to break the link of the controversy. For instance “We, the Buddhists, say ‘there is no soul *, the Buddhist are followers of the Buddha, whose fold AS aghosa joined; Asvaghosa is the author of a play called Rasirapala, this play starts in a particulur manner, and so on.” Such @ vadin would even sing and dance in continuation of his talk. Such irrelevent digression leaves no scope for discussion and does not help the parties to come to any conclusion. Such useless talk is indulged in with the idea that the prati- vadin would naturally not be in a position to reproduce all this and would consequently be declared defeated. Such a Procedure is adopted only to conceal one’s weakness, but never by truthful persons. If the prativadin is alert enough to point out this drawback in the argume.t, the vadin is defeated. If he does not expose it, victory or defeat belongs to neither.+” The expression ‘adosodbhivana’ also can be explained in different ways. If after the vadin has adduced proof in support of his own thesis, the prativiidin, who has a counter-thesis to pit against the thesis of the vadin, does not expose the flaw in the argument of the vadin; he should be declared defeated. The faults of reasoning are nyanatva (deficiency),252 Indian Dialectics asiddhatva (unreality), anaikantikat& (inconclusiveness), prov- ing just the opposite of what is desired to be proved (viruddha), and the fallacies of illustration. If the prativadin does not expose these, does not point out the defect in the argument of the radin, this is a nigrahasthina (ground of defeat) for him, as this can happen only when the reasoning of the vadin is faultless, or even though it is faulty, the prativadin cannot discover the defect owing to his ignorance or because he is not able to give an exposition of it. It is not proper to say that if the reasoning of the vadin is faulty, he can be said to be defeated even when the prativadin does not expose the defect in his argument. Only, such a vadin cannot be said to achieve victory as he has not proved his case. Defeat, it may be noted, does not follow merely on the failure to prove one’s thesis or the truth; it follow only when one party’s reasoning has been refuted by the other party. Thus even the vadin whose reasoning is not competent to prove his thesis should not be declared defeated if the prativadin does not lay his finger on this defect. But failure to expose this defeat is certainly a nigrahasthina for the opponent * (dosa+ anudbhivana).*® Or ‘ adosodbhavana’ can mean the exposure of what is not a real defeat, or the exposure of inconsequential defects which do not disturb the main thesis ( adosa+udbhavana ). Both these are legitimate nigrahasthinas for the prativadin, Adoso- dbhiivana would cover all varieties of jati or sophistical refu- tation. If the prativadin tries to expose non-existent defects and the vadin establishes that these are no defects at all, the prativadin should be declared defeated since the reasoning of the vadin is faultless, And even if it is faulty due to the presence of some other defect, neither of them can be said to be victorious or defeated inasmuch as one has not established his thesis and the other instead of alleging a * According to the Nyaya school, the judges would disclose this failure to expose the defects in the vadin's reasoning as the vadin would not himself lay bare his own failing.Checks in debate 283 fault really present in the argument has tried io expose a non-existing defect. If a thesis is established and there is no counter-thesis pitted against it, the vadin becomes victorious. Therefore, one desirous of victory should establish his own thesis and also confute the argument of his opponent. Even when the vadin’s argument is faultless, if the prativadin urges an apparent but really non-existent defect in it, the vadin can be said to be victorious and the prativadin defeated only when the v@din has proved that the defect is not present and that his own reasoning is faultless; otherwise, he merely discloses his own incompetency to prove his thesis, and the prativadin also cannot be said to have been victorious as he has wrong knowledge of defects.4* Thus there are only two nigrahasthanas—asadhantriga-vacana and adosodbhavana for the vadin and the prativadin respectively. Dharmakirti has refuted all the twenty-two nigrahasthanas as recognised by the Nyaya school and tried to show that they are misnomers and can ultimately be reduced to astidhanariga- vacana or adosodbliivana or to some herabhiasa ( which. is included in the former) or that the Naiyayika has described many irrelevant items which have no bearing upon the logical character of reasoning. For instance, what sane person would give up his thesis that ‘word ( Sabda ) is non-eternal because it is perceptible by the senses, like jar’ and accept the counter-thesis that ‘word is eternal’, simply because the opponent brings in the irrelevant illustration of samanya (universal) which is perceptible by the senses and is eternal ? It can be clearly seen that the reason ‘because it is perceptible by the senses’ is inconclusive (anaikantika) being present in therefore an Its statement eternal as well as non-eternal things, and astidhanariga, not an essential means of proof. would naturally be a nigrahasthina for the vadin. Thus what is known as pratijaa-hani is really asadhanahga-vacana.®° For the Jaina logician, victory (jaya) consists in the establishing of one’s own thesis and defeat (pariiaya) in the254 Indian. Dialectics failure to prove one’s thesis, ‘Nigraha’ signifies this very defeat and not anything like execution or imprisonment or the like. Or that defeat alone consisting in the failure to establish one’s position is called ‘nigraha’ figuratively because it is the ground of nigraha, but it cannot be anything else as propounded by others, viz. the Brahmanical Naiyayikas and the Buddhist logicians. The definition of nigrahasthina “ground of nigraha’ given by tbe author of the Nyaya-stitra viz ‘misapprehension or want of apprehension ’ (vipratipatty- @pratipattimitram—See NS., 1.2 19) is not correct in the opinion of the Jaina logicians. Merely these cannot constitute a nigrahasthana. Misapprehension is anprehension or under- Standing which is perverted, vitiated and worthy of condem- nation. It consists in regarding an invalid probans as a Valid one, and a false refutation as a real one As regards ‘lack of apprehension’, it consists in the failure to accomplish what is to be accomplished, e.g. the failure to refute the Probans employed by the Opponent nd the failure to refute the objection raised against one’s own reasoning. It is held by the Naiyayikas that a debater is defeated in either way, viz. when he fails to attend to what is to be done or resorts to the ©pPosite course. But mere misapprehension or the lack of apprehension cannot be a nigrahasthana (ground of defeat), On the contrary, the failure to Prove one’s own thesis alone is the cause of defeat. The twenty-two varieties of nigraha- sthiina as given by the Naiyayikas are thus repudiated.5? The Jaina logicians have also criticised the two nigraha: sthanas Tecognised by Dharmakirti viz asadhantaiiga-vacana and adosodbhavana. The idea behind these is that the statement of what is not an essential factor of inference, or the non- Statement of an essential factor, and the exposure of a defect that does not really exist in the other party’s argument, or the non-exposure of a defect that is really present there— these constitute nigrahasthanas (grounds of defeat). The Jaina logicians say that defeat consists in the failure to establish one’s thesis alone, and not in these. The Jaina logicians wouldChecks in debate ask the Buddhist, ‘‘ Does one party inflict defeat on another on the ground of these after having established its own thesis or not having done so ?” In the former case, the defeat of the other party is secured by the very fact that this party has established its own thesis, and exposure of a defect in the other party’s argument is superfluous. In the latter case, even the exposure or the non-exposure of defects will not lead to the victory of either party as both parties have failed to prove their respective thesis. Further, what is regarded as essential for inference by one party, say the Naiyayika (e.g. five members of a syllogism) may be regarded as non-essential by the other, say the Buddhist who recognises only two members of syllogism. Again, the express statement of nega- tive concomitance ( vyatireka-vyapti) subsequent to the state- ment of the probans with positive concomitance (anvaya-vyapti) and vice versa cannot serve as nigrahasthGna as involving tautology as the Buddhist would have it. Does such a person employing this donble method become liable io defeat ( or ‘check’ ) when he proves his thesis on the strength of a valid probans, or when he does not prove it ? In the former case, he cannot be said to be defeated even when he has proved his thesis simply because he is seen to make a superfluous or redundant statement which has no necessary bearing on the deduction of the conclusion, as this does not involve contradiction of the conclusion otherwise independently arrived at. The Jaina logicians say that they see no reason for offence even if a person digresses a little after he has established his thesis, as this is not something unusual in the world. If one jnsists on unnecessary and rigid formality, the person: who adduces a sound probans and proves his thesis should be declared defeated even if he indulges in such innocent diver- sions as chewing betel-nut or twitching the eye-brow or waving the hand and so on. It has been argued that victory and defeat do not depend on the proof of one’s thesis and the failure of such proof, respectively, but they depend upon the knowledge (e.g. of256 Indian Dialectics what is just essential proof or a real defect and so on), and want of it as is disclosed in the employing of non-essential factors or the non-employment of essential factors and the like. Even here if the person has proved his thesis by putting forth a sound reason or argument, he cannot be charged with ignorance of a sound probans, when as a matter of fact he lacks just the knowledge of the number of factors regarded as necessary for a syllogism by different schools Even if the Person has not proved his thesis due to his probans being fallacious, the opponent (prativadin) who tries to inflict defeat on him on the score of adhika (redundant statement) cannot be said to have thorough knowledge of a refutatory argument as he does not expose the fallacy in the reason advanced by the vadin. He is aware of the fault of redundant statement (adhika) but ignorant of the fallacious reason (hetvabhasa). In the circumstances, he cannot be supposed to have defeated the vadin completely. as he has proved his inability to avert the. nigraha involved in the failure to expose the defect pre- Sent in the vadin’s reasoning. Further, if knowledge and the want of it be the criterion of victory and defeat respectively, the advocacy of the thesis and the counter-thesis by the vadin and the prativadin Tespectively could not be exempted from the charge of futility. in view of the fact that there must be present the knowledge or the ignorance of the competency of the probans in one Position or the other. Therefore, instead of recognising any such criteria as the Naiyayikas and the Buddhists suggest, it is better to say, according to the Jaina logicians, that victory accrues from the establishing of one’s own Position and defeat from the failure to do so. Such a view does not make the advocacy of a thesis and its counterthesis, ie. a debate a futility.5? Dharmakirti’s criticism of the different varieties of nigraha- sthanas in his Vada-nyaya has been a source of inspiration and guidance to the Jaina logicians. This proves interesting reading. They also have tried to reduce the nigrahasthinas to some kind of hetvabhisa or shown the futility of these\ | | Checks in debate 7387 checks till it is considered whether one has proved one’s thesis or not. Many nigrahasthinas, moreover, from among these are subsumed under one variety, —for example, ay rtha, aparthaka, apraptakala and punarukta under nirarthaka —of course only after doing proper justice to the motive of the person who is charged with these (See PM. Viti, pp. 65-72). Regarding hetvabhisas, the Jaina logicians observe that a hetvabhiisa constitutes a legitimate nigrahasthana when the prativadin urges the fallacy of contrary reason (viruddha) in the vadin’s argument and thus succeeds automatically in establishing the opposite thesis—his own view. As regards the detection of the other fallacies such as asiddha, etc it can be regarded as a legitimate nigrahasthana only when the opponent has esablished his own thesis independently, not otherwise. The only criterion for a valid hetw (probans ) is invariable concomitance with the probandum, or rather incompatibility with the opposite. that is to say, its presence not being possible when the probandum is not present (ayathinupapannatva ). Any probans lacking this character is a fallacious one and its detection by the opponent can serve as a nigrahasthana only if the opponent has himself proved his own thesis. On the whole, it may be said, the Jainas appreciate the application of these ‘checks’, but for them the main criterion is whether the debaters have proved their respective thesis or not, when the different nigrahasthanas can be regarded as legitimate only if they really come in the way of the proving of the thesis. Jaya-parijaya-vyavastht The position as regards the determination of victory and defeat (jaya -parajaya ~ vyavasthi) in the Nyaya, the Buddhist and the Jaina schools, would be something like this that according to the Nyaya school, a person who establishes his view by the strictly logical method, even without employing chala, etc. can be checked and defeated by the opponent on account of such minor drawbacks as repetition, or non- reproduction of the opponent’s argument, or some irrelevant 1-33258 Indian Dialectics point discussed or the like, though these are in a sense extrane- ous conditions not affecting the establishing of his thesis. The Buddhist logicians prohibit or rather discourage the employment of chala, etc., yet, according to them, a person is liable to a ‘check’ or is defeated if he states anything that is not strictly essential for proving his thesis, or if he does not detect a flaw if there is any in the argument of the opponent, or if he exposes a flaw not really present in the opponent’s argument. Of course, this happens when the opponent points out this failing. By astidhaniiga, non-essential factor, is meant every- thing irrelevant to the proving of the main thesis. These restrictions and rules may lead to a circumstance where the vadin employs a fallacious reason to prove his thesis and the prativadin instead of exposing the real flaw exposes other non-existent flaws or defects. Taking advantage of this, the vadin defends himself by pointing out that the confutation is a futile one, and thus the vadin, even though he has not been able to prove his thesis, can defeat his opponent on the ground that he has indulged in the exposure of non-existent defects. The vadin will not of course be declared victorious, but he will not also be pronounced defeated. We may nevertheless rely on the judgement of the sabhyas and the sabhapati if they are really intelligent and honest persons. It may also happen that the vadin’s Teasoning is valid, still the tricky opponent urges Some non-existent defect and the vadin does not answer this objection of his. In such circumstances neither is declared victorious or defeated. The Jaina logicians would say, on the ground of their criteria of victory and defeat, viz. establishment of one’s thesis and refutation of the counter-thesis, and the failure to do so, that in the former case if the prativadin is Pronounced defeated on account of his futile refutation, the vadin also should be pronounced defeated because he has not been able to prove his thesis. [n the Jaina view, the establish- ment by one party of its thesis is equivalent to the failure of the other party to establish the counter-thesis. Thus the establishing of one’s thesis is the main ground forChecks in debate 259 victory and the failure to do so is the ground of defeat. Victory of one party invariably implies the defeat of the other party. Redundant, or deficient statement, digression and the like are insignificant so Jong as the thesis is proved and should not then be admitted as criteria of censure or defeat as the matter becomes confused thereby. The Jaina logicians say that one may even dance after establishing his thesis, and such’ petty factors though irrelevant to the main point should not come in the way of the achievement of victory, for all this is a part of worldly behaviour which cannot be denied or prohi- bited so long as it does not affect the point at issue.** We have seen that the later Naiyayikas, especially Udayana, tried to reinterpret the nigrahasthanas in the light of the criticism by Dharmakirti and the Jaina logicians. Though in actual practice there would not be in essence much difference on account of the different positions of these schools, yet it can be said that the Jaina point of view takes into consi- deration mainly the central idea of the establishment of one’s own thesis and the consequent refutation of the opponent’s thesis, and does not allow the issue to be unnecessarily confused by other formalities, though it recognises these as leading to defeat or censure when they obstruct the establishment of the thesis. The Brahmanical and the Buddhist logicians, especially the former, take into consideration other extraneous factors also which might intrude into a debate, in addition to the main purpose of proving one’s thesis and refuting the opponent's. Both may have had their justification in the actual practice of the debate. The Brahmanical Naiyayikas would not tolerate in a debate such things as useless repetition, digression, etc, and are what may be called sticklers in respect of form and procedure of debate, while the Jaina logicians would object to taking formalities into consideration when the main pur- pose of the debate, viz. the establishment of the thesis, is achieved. We may finally note briefly the view of Jayatirtha of the Madhva school. He recognises only six nigrahasthanas, viz.260 Indian Dialectics virodha (contradiction or opposition ), asa/igati (inconsistency), nyfna (deficiency), adhika (redundancy ), savvada (accepting the opponent’s thesis ), anukti (non-statement of what should be stated for convincing others). The first four are faults Of reasoning or argument (upapatti-dosa); and these along With sarivada and anukti comprehend all the nigrahasthanas admitted by the Nyaya school. Virodha and asaiigati ate directly faults of reasoning ( upapatti-dosa ), that is to say, of content (artha~dosa) and indirectly of statement or express- ion, whereas nyzina and adhika are directly faults of expression (vacanu-dosa) and indirectly of content, Virodha? signifies absence of compatibility of sense (yogyatahhiva), and “asatigati’ absence of expectancy. (@karikstt-virodha). Statement of only a Part of what should have been fully stated constitutes ‘nyana’, and the statement of what is certainly expected, but whose function is already served by another, constilutes ‘adhika’. These are twofold according as they pertain to inference proper or are common to debate and these four along with sanivada (admitting the opponent's thesis) and anukti (non-statement of what is essential) (—these two being faults of the speaker—) constitute the six nigrahasthiinas in debate, 55 Jayatirtha shows how all the twenty-two nigrahasthiinas of the Nyaya schoo! can be included in these: (1) Pratijia-hani (in which, according to one view, the vadin glves up his position)=saivaida, (2) Pratijiintara—Here a new proposition is pul forward, so it cannot be said to be the continuation of the same debate, nor can it be said to be a new debate, as then this would cease to be a nigrahasthina. This proposition is not at all expected or required, there is no Gkanksa for it, so it isa case of asaigati, and not pertaining to debate, it is not a nigrahasthina, (3) Pratijni-virodha (oppo- sition of sentences or words in a sentence )=virodha ( or sva- vacana-virodha, a sub-variety of virodha). (4) Pratijna-sannyasa =virodha (of the type of pramina-virodha—opposition by sources of valid knowledge ). (5) Hetvantara can be included in Pratijintara, so=asargati. (6) Arth&ntara=asargati.(7) NirarthakaChecks in debate 261 sanukti. (8) Avijaasartha=anukti. (9) Aparthaka=asaiigati. (10) Apriiptakiila is really not a nigrahasthina but if it be at all regarded as one, it would be included in asavigati. (11) Nvanasnytina; (12) Adhikazadhika; (13) Punaruktazadhika. (14) Ananubhiisaya is of five kinds (as explained above }— reference io what was staied by pronouns, reproducing a part of whai is to be confuted, stating only the refutation, reproduc- ing wrongly, and remaining silent. The first three=nyana, the fourth=asaigati, the filth=anukti. (13-17) Ajnina, Apratibha, Viksepazanukii, (18) Matinujntizasarigati. (19) Paryanuyojyo- anuyojyanuyoga is four-fold—chala, jati, Adyabhisa, and apriptakile grahanam. Of these ciala can be included in asaiigati or viradha of the svanyiiya- virodhe type where the same objection could apply to one’s own statement also, and a different meaning could be imposed statement too; j@zi too with its twenty- on the chalavidin four varieties involves svanyayavirodha (as shown in the chapter on chola aud jai). Pratijnahinyadyabhisa = virodha of the virodha type as these Gbhiisas are opposed by the rifative view of the judges, etc. Apraptakale grahanam is equivalent to asaviguti, because here a nigrahasthGna is urged before or after iis proper occasion, when there is no expec- tancy for it. (21) Apasiddhiinta = Svavacana-virodha. (22) The different hesv@bhisas also can be included in one of these six. 5¢ For example, ki@/ayayapadis(a can be subsumed under virodha (prabala-pramina-viredha, contradiction by a more powerful source of knowledge). Mostly hetvabhiasas come under virodha whether it be of hetu or drs{anta or the like. 57 Jayatirtha’s is only an attempt of a later day to arrive at a more compact classification. Sribarsa has refuted the definitions of a few of the nigrahasthinas like pratijat-hini, pratijiaintara, pratijii-virodha, apasiddhinia in the second Pariccheda of his Khandana-khanda- Khidya. But this adds hardly anything to our understanding of ihe nigrahasthiinas, so it not n2czssary to give a9 exposition of this here, —262 Indian Dialectics NOTES Akhanditaharbk@rinah paraharikaragatanam iha parajayah, sa eva nigrahah sa etesu pratija@h@nyadisu vasatiti nigrahasya parajayasya sthanam unnayakam iti yavat.—VV., p. 30, see also TR., p. 319. Nigrahasthanapraptau katham apratipatti vipratipatti)—yadayarh sadhayita samarthena sadhanenopattena parena jatyadibhir akulikrtah uttarari na pratipadyate tada katham apratipattih katharh vi vipratie pattir iti? tada’pi sadhanasyaiva samarthyaparijiiinad asamartham etat sadhanam ity apratipattir vipratipattir itiNV., 1.2.19. Aindriyakatvad anityah sabdo ghatavad iti krte’para aha, istam aindriyakatvarh samanye nitye, kasman na tatha gabda iti pratyava- sthite idam aha yady aindriyakarh sam@nyarh nityazh kama ghato nityo’stv iti. sa Khalv ayath sadhakasya drstantasya nityatvarh pra- safijayan nigaman@ntam eva paksath jab@tt paksarh jahat pratijn jabatity ucyate pratijfiajrayatvat paksasyeti.NB., 5.2.2. rh Dmitag casav ante vyavasthita iti drsantah, svag casau drst@ntas ceti svadrstanta-sabdena pakga evabhidhiyate, pratidrstanta-gabdena ca Pratipaksab—pratipaksas casau drstantag ceti. parapaksasya yo dharmas tari svapaksa evanujanatiti yatha’ nityal gabda aindriyakatvad iti dvitiya-paksavadini sam@nyena pratyavasthita idam aha—yadi sam@nyam aindriyakarh nityar drstam iti fabdo'py evam bhavaty ity esa pratijnia- hanih, prag anena pratijfigtam anityah gabda iti sam@nyena anaikantika- tvena pratyavasthita idam @ha nitya iti, prak pramanavadharitartha— parityagad vipratipattito nigrabasthanam iti, prasajga-vidhanad iti cet atha manyase nasau pagcad api gabdasya nityatati pratipadyate kir tu prasangarh karoti yadi samanyam aindriyakari nityarh drstath gabdo’py evath bhavatv iti prasangarh vidhatte. tac ca mata eva tatprapteh, yata evasau hetudosoddhare kartavye prasanjayaty ata eva nigrhyata itiNV., p. 552. See BS., pp. 81-82. Tatra sadhyadharmabanir Varttike. sadhanadharma-hanis tu anityah $abdah prameyatvad ity ukte anaikantikena ca dusite astu tarhi krtaka- tvad iti yath@. paksahanis tu, anitye vaymanase karyatvad ity ukte bhagasiddhya ca prayukte astu tarhi vag eva tasmad anityeti yatha. etas tisro vigesanadvara’ pi drastavyah. tad yatba kunaiyayikena vivadadhyasitarh buddhimat-kartrparvakam iti paksite buddhimad iti vigesanasamarthye ca varnite tarhi kartrparvakam ity evastv iti sadhyavigesanahanih. vivadadhy@sitarh_ksityadi kartrparvakam iti pratijaate Sankaracaryadiga ca dasite vivadadhyasitam ity evastv iti| Checks in debate. 263° paksa-yigesanahanir iti, drstantabanis tu, anityah gabdah pratyaksa- gunatyad dvyanukavad ity ukte sadhanavikalataya pratyukte ma bhad dvyagukam udabaranam ghatarapam bhavisyati, na codaharapam Rdaraniyam iti nyayad iti yatha, yatha vz bauddhasya vyatireko- daharanabalena ksanabhayga-sadhane pravrtte apramanikatvena ca dasite astu tarhi ghata evanvayeneti. drst@ntagatatvena sadhyadharmahanis tu Bhasye. sadhanadharmahanis tu parvavad dvyaguka udahrte tathaiva sidhana-vikalatayg ca dusite astu tarhi karyatva-hetvadharataya idam evodaharanam iti yatha. atrapi visesapah@nir ghaniya. tad yatha yat kptakarh tad anityarh dystath yatha ghatadravyam ity ukte drayyapada- narthakye codahrte astu tarhi ghata ity eveti drstantavigesanahanih. evam k@rapasamagrity atrapy antyapad@narthakye yat karyam tad buddhimatkartrpurvakar, yatha ghata ity udahyte parvavac ca disite tarhi kartrparvakam ity evasty iti sadhyavigesanabanih. evath parvavat sadhana-vigesanahanir drstinte. disanahanis tu niranuyojyanuyogod= bhavana’nantararh diisanmntaraporigrahena drastavya. tad yatha yadi nayam asiddhah astu tarhi badbita ity 2dii—BS., pp. 82-83. See also VV., p. 30, NP., pp. 176-177, TR., pp. 319ff. Yady api asya manasi viparivartate asarvagatatvarh sadhayitva maya asarvagatatve sat;ti aindriyakatvarh hetur vigesaniya iti tathapy etad anena na krtath kit t asarvagatay gabdo ghatavad ity uktvaiva viratah pararthanumane ca vacanagata guna-dosah vicaryante na tu vacananapeksati vastu.—NVIT, pp. 701-702. Kathari nitya varpah gravanatvat sabdatvavad ity ukte dhvanibhic anekanta iti ca pratyukte sadhvanaya eva varna nity® iti paksavigesana vidhav anaikanta-pariharat. gabdo nityah karyatvad ity ukte bhage siddhasadhanam iti ca pratyukte vargatmakah sabdo nitya iti paksavigee sanadhikoktau siddhasadhanata-pariharat. agnimad idarh surabhi-malina- dhumavattvad ity ukte asamarthavigesanataya ca pratyuke sagoikrsna: gurumad iti sgdhyantaradhikoktau vigesan@samarthyaparibarat. vivada- dhyasitar) buddhimatpurvakam ity ukte siddhasadhyataya ca praty- uktabhase upadanadyabhijigpurvakam iti sadhyavigesanadhikoktau siddbasadhanataparibarat. tad etat paksa-tadvisesana-sadhya-tadvisesana- Praksepena caturvidhath dusap@ntara-pariharartham api pravartate avantarabhedac canantyam.—BS., pp. 85-86. See also VV., pp. 30-31; NP., pp. 178-179. Atra ~pratijia-hetvor iti vakyagata-pratiyogidvayopalaksana-paramn virodhasyobhayanisthatvat laksyagatapratijaapadam apy uktam&traparam, ekapadotkirtanath ca tadathja-virodha-sucanena’ vayavantoropalaksana- bhramarh varayati. tenaikasmin vakye tadarhgayor avdntaravakyayoh padayor va mitho vyaghata uktah virodha iti sutracthah —BS., pp. 88-89,264 Indian: Dialectics 10 Saca bahuprakarah—pratijaapadayoh prati jaa yoh pratijfiopanayayor mandah, hetuvirodhavirodhabhyam anavakasat pratijfia-nigamanayor hetusvapadayor hetu-drstantayor hetupenayayor drstanta-svapadayoh pratijii prapaticah. sadhyadharminigedhd va, yathd nasty atmeti, dharma- nigediid va, yathesvaro na karteti. dharmividher va, yatha atitam astiti. dharmavidher va, yatha param™y yatha hetuvyaparat prag api sat karyarh karyatvad iti. visesanadvara va, yatha madhye’py asat karyam Adyantayor asattvad iti—BS., p. 90. See also VV., p. 3l.-ckatra vakye tadarhéayor avantaravakyayoh pada- yor va mithovyaghatah pratiji@-virodhah.....Also TR., p. 329. 11 See NP., pp. 184-185. 12° See NP., pp. 181-182. 13. See NVIT., pp. 706-707. 14 Ekaprakrtidath vyaktam iti prat hetvoh pratijiiodaharan: tarkayoh, evadi dasayavakye’pi sa eva ah sav Wa iti, svarnpato ¥ ‘asmaddhetol) ? cka-praketinariy vikaragach parinamat, myt-parvakanam saravadinath distarh parimanari yavan prakyter vyaho bhavati tavan vikara iti, drsarh ca prativikararh parimanam. asti cedar parimanara prativyaktari tad eka-prakytinarh vikaranam parimanat paiyawo vyaktam idam ekaprakytiti. asya vya+ bhicarena pratyavasthanarh, nanaprakylinam ekaprakrt drstarh parim@nam iti. evarh pratyavasthite aha ekaprakrtisamanvaye sati Saravadi-vikardgath parimanadarianat. sukhaduhkhamoha-sam- anvitarh hidarh vyaktarh parimitarh grhyate, tatra prakrtyantararapa samanvayabhave saty ekaprakrtitvam iti. tad idam ayigesokte hetau pratigiddhe vigesarh bruvato hetvantararh bhavati.—NB , 5.2 6. 15. Tac ca svamata-paramatobhayanubhayamatabhedena caturvidham. tad yatha anityah gabdah aindriyakatvat karyatvad va, gunag ca sa akagasya, tad eva copadhivasac chrotrara tena cayata grhyate samavayad ityadi. stathaivopakramya paramate ca dravyash jabdah, sarhyogagrahyo’- bhivyaktidharma cayam ityadi. tathaivopakramya’ numanagamyam asya’nityatvam, anumanarh ca pramanam, tac caturvidhari sadvidharh va, kificit sattamatrena gamayati, kificit jfiatarh sad ityadi. tathaivopa- kramya hetur ayarh hetus ca hinoter ityadi.—BS., pp. 94-95. 16 Atra yada Dravidah svabhasaya tad-bhasanabhijfiam aryari prati sabda- nityatvarh pratipadayati tada tan nirarthakarh nigrahasthanam; sa khalu aryabhasarh janann asamarthya-pracch@danaya tadbhasanabhijnataya va svabhasaya sadhanavi prayuktavan so'yath purvasmia kalpe viprati- pattya nigrhyate uttarasmiristu apratipattya. vastutah sadhanasamarthye’- pi, mukavad aryapratipadaka-sabdapratites tatpratipadanarambha- | vaiyarthyat.—NVTT., p. 710.265 Checks in debate 17 Tena’vacakaprayogo nirarthakam ity artbah, © tasya caturdba prayoga— sambhavah. pramadat, yath liyga-vacana-vibhakti-vipayasah. vacaka~ bhimanat, yatha krt-taddhita’*khyata-viparyasah. abhyasat, yatha sathskytam — upakramya’pabhrathga-vacanam. _vikalpita-fesokter va, yatharthaparagabde —paratSprakaravyudasanena — svarppa-paratayarh vaamatrath caitad iti vat—BS,, p. 96. 18 Vaktavyataya’bhyupagata-bhasamalavyakarana-siddham eva niyama~ kathayarh bhasitavyam iti, uktath ca Prajna-paritrane. Sadhugirvana-vanyaiva prayoga-niyame krte, apabhrarhsanyabhasabhir bhasayam capi dasanam. akrte niyame sarvabhagabhir api bhatanaia, skhalane ca punah sadhusabdagrahanam isyate. itiNP., p. 192. 19 Tac ca trividham. — sviya-sviya-tantramatraradham. — gamitayogam anapeksita-rndhikam .. . .padavivekopayasamasaprakaranadyapayapadita- sandeharh yatha sveto dhavatiti.--BS., p. 98. 20. sabbaprasiddhair vivaksitasadharanair aygamitayogair nirastagrastadidosaily padair vyavahared iti sarah. prativadyabhyupagame tu prahelikapraya api vyavaharsh pravartante. ata eva hi drptairmabavidyadiritinarh prayogo'bhyupagamyata eva.—NP., pp. 198-199. tata, vyavadhananvayarh, 21 Tac ca trividham. mukhyati yatha Bhasyodabr yatha gaccati payasa’svena bhuktva nagararh Caitra iti. vikalpasesa- nanvayam _padarthabhupagame’pi sambhavita-samastanvaya-prakara- khandanat tad-anabhyupagamena drastavyam. vikalpantahpatiprakara- bhyupagame tu yathoktakhandanam eva nigrahah. asamarthavigesan: nanvayarh caturtham aparthakam astiti Kecit. tad atisyam asimpradayie katvad atiprasasgac ca, hetvabhasantarbhatarh hi tad iti Varttikam. na ca tato’nvayapratipattir eva na syat. bhyta tv asamarthyena badhyate. tatha’pi ca’parthakatve virodha-hetvabhasadinam apy atraivantar- tasmad yatraiva anvay@navagatis tad eva’ parthakarh BS., pp. 99-100. bhavah syat. pa tu yatra’sau badhyetapiti 22 Eke tu bruvate-naitan nigrahasthanam evam api siddher iti. samaya- nabhyupagamae ca na ca vayarh praticchma iti. prayogac ca—prayuktag cavayavavyatyayah sarva-gastresv iti kasya’yari samaya iti, yat tavad evam api. siddher iti, prayogapeta-gabdavad tat syat—yatha gaur ity asya padasyarthe gaviti prayujyam@nath padarh kakudadimantam artham pratipadayatiti, na ca gabdanvakhy@nar) —vyartham. anena {abdena go-sabdam eva’sau pratipadyate go-gabdat kakudadi- mantam artham. tatha _pratijiaidy-avayava-viparyasen@”nuparvith 1-3423 24 25 26 Indian Dialect pratipadyate @nupurvya cartham iti, etat katham? parvarh tavat Karmopadiyate tatali karanam mrtpindadyudaharanam anekadha loka iti, yat punar etat samaygnabhyupagamat iti, nayarh samayo’pi tv arthasyanuparvr, so'yam arthasyanuparvim anvacaksano nabhyakhyeya iti. yat punar etat prayogad iti, na, nigrahasthana-visayaparijfianat— Sastre vaky@ny arthasaygrahartham upadiyante sarigrhitath tv artharh vakyena pratipadayita prayoga-kale pratijfidikaya”nuputvya _pratie padayatiti—NV., pp. 555-556. Na hi Sastre krtsnasad iva”darabhatad ivety arthasangraho yatha Katharheit kriyate iti vade pi tatha kriyatam iti yuktarh vadadisu pakse-pratipaksavad yaktror api pariksyam@natvat pariksitasya ca sastritatvat—NVTT., p. 715. Avayava-sabdas tv atra samastakathabhaga-sangrah@rthah tena catur- vidham etat_ pada-padariga’ vayava-tadarhsa-viparyasabhedat.—BS., p. 101. Eke tu pratijna-nyanarh nastity acakgate. etat tu na yuktam. pratijiia- matrena prayogo vikalpatah paryanuyojyah, yah — pratiji@nyanarh vakyam brats kim ayam nigrhyate’tha neti? yadi nigrhyate katamat nigrahasthanam iti? na hi hetvabhasadayo’tra santiti. na ca hetvadi- dofah santiti nigrahari cabhyupaiti, tasmat pratijia-nyanam eveti. atha na nigrahah ? nygnarh vakyarh artharh sadhayatiti_sadhanabhave siddhir abhyupagata bhavati. yat tu bravist siddhanta-parigraha eva pratija etad api na buddhyamahe karmanah upadanam pratijfia. , samanya-visesavato’vadharitasya vastunah parigrahah siddhanta NV., pp. 556-557. Eke tu bruvate nedath nigrahasthanarh dardhyad, dardhyarh hi jna- pyasya bhayobhir jfapakair drstari yatha dhgmalokabhyam agner iti. na, dardhyarthanabhidbanat bhayobhir jfiapakair dardhyam bhavati iti na dardhyartho’ bhidhiyate. kith bravisi dardhyad iti, sutarama pratipattir lardhyam iti. tad api tadrg eva, kim uktath bhavati sutaram iti. atha bravisi dve api jfiapake ? satyarh dve api jflapake. ekenaivabhidhangd vyartham abhidhanarh dvitiyasya prakagite dipantaropadanavad iti anavastha ca prakatite’pi sadhan@ataropadanad itiiNV., p. 557. Eke tu bruvate nedarh nigrahasthanam abadbanat na hi parikyavidheh punar bruvata kigcid badhyate; para-pratipadanarthara ca vakya- prayogah, punar abhidbanena sutaram arthah pratipadyate iti na nigrahasthanaxa pratipadakatvat. satyavi pratipadayati; pratipaditartha- pratipadakatvad vaiyarthyari syad vaiyarthyan nigrahasthanarh sadhana- visayaparijéanat, na ca’ yarh sisyo na gurus tasman pratipadyata iti—NV., pp. 557-558. ati puna— ———— — od Checks in debate 27 Dusyamatram evanubhasaniyath na tu sarvarh vadi-vakyam. anupa- yuktabhidhanena'rthantaratva-prasaygat. praudbi-prakatanaya sarvanu- bhasana-niyame tad-akaranam eva nigrahabetur bhavati. na ca tenaiva vadi-vakyeng’nubhasanivam iti niyamab, vakyantarena’nubhasane’pi tatprayojana-siddieh.—TR., p. 349. 28 Uttarena’vasthanat nedar nigrahasthanam iti kecit—uttarena'vasthanat uttarena guadosavati_madhatvamadhatvarh gamyata iti kim punar uccaritenasti. asti hi uttare kagcit samartho driyate na_ pratyuccarane, na’ sau tayata nigrahasthanam arhati. yas ca”rabhya svapaksath_ na. irvahayet tasya syat khalikaramatram iti—NV, p. 558. 29 See NVTT., p. 719. 30 Na, uttara-visaya’ parijfianat—yady ayarh na pratyucearayati, nirvisayam uttarari prasajyate. athottaram braviti, katharh noccarayati tad idath vyahatam ucyate noccarayaty uttararh ca bravititi. apratijfianac ca nedari pratijnayate purvam ucc@rayitavyath pagead uttaram abhidheyam api tu yatbakatharhcid uttarazh vaktavyam —uttarath_ ca” $rayabhave na yuktam iti yuktam apratyuccaranarh nigrahasthanath itiNV., p. 558. 31 Tatha ca tadityadisarvanamna’nuvadena va ekadetanuvadena’ va viparitanuvadena va kevaladnsanoktya va stambhena veti pancadha vibhavyate.—BS., pp. 110-111 32 Etac ca kasya parajaya ity anuyuktay@ parisada vacamyarh. na _khalu nigraharh praptah svakaupinar vivrnuyad iti—NB, 5.2.22, 33 Na cayam apratibhato na bhidyate. sa hy uttara’pratipattir iyath tu anuttarasyaivottaratvena vipratipattir iti mahan visesah. anenaiva sarva jatayo nigrahasthanarvena sajgrhita bhavanti. na ca hetvabhasaaam ito na bhedab; te hi vadino nigrahasthanam ayarh tu prativadina iti mah@n vigesah —NVTT., p. 723. 34° Sa caturvidhah, chalath jatir abhaso’ navasaragrahanam ceti...abhaso yatha, anekakalpasphurane vikalpato'nistakalpatyagena pratijiahanih. prakaran@dyapannavigesaviskaranena pratijfiintaram. anavasara-graha- narh tu yathoktavasaram aprapya’tikramya va grahanam. yatha tyaksyasi cet pratijn@-h@nih...—BS., pp. 120-121, See also PP. p, 59— “Niranuyojyanuyogah sa ca caturvidhah chalarh jatih hanyadyabhasah apraptakale grahanath ceti—Udbhavana-kalam aprapya’ tikramya va nigrahasthznodbhavanam aprapta-kale grahanam.—PP. pp. 73. 35 Nigrahasthanabhasavacanam api babuvidharh. tan nigrabasthanabhave tad- Aropaparh, nigrahasthanantare tadanyanigrahasthanavacanath; svasamaye268 36 37 38 39 40 41 2 43 44 Indian Dialectic s nigrabastharatvena’parisankhyatasya nigrahasibanetay3 prasanjanam, Ksantavyataya’ bhyupagatasyodbhavanam ity Zdi—NP, p. 214. For Niranuyojyanuyoga, see pp 211-215. See also Vardhamana’s Prakasa on BS.. p. 121. See Nyaya-sitra~vrtti, p. 69 (Anandasrama series). Kith punar vakya-prasarhsa-laksanam. atrocyate. yuktyaviruddham anadhikam anygnam adhigata-padartharn, vacanadharmanibaddhati prasiddha-drstanta’viruddham ananuyojyarh ca. ebbir hetubbir vakya- pragarhsety ucyate.—UH., p. 10. Atha ke vakyadosa). atrocyate, parvokta-viparita-vakya- dosah. vakya- dosah punar dvividhsh, kith ca tad dvaividhyam. arthasyabhede puraruktih. vakyasya cabhede punaruktih...yad alarhkrtam asaygatari voktarh sa sarvo vakyadosa ity ucyate. apararh ca yad ukti-samupetam apy akramam eso'pi vakyadosa iti—UH., p. 12. Hetvabbasanari laksanany aparimitani sathksepatas tv astav eva. vak- chalarh, samanya-chalarh, sarhSaya-samah, kalatitah, prakarana-samah varnya-samah, savyabhicarah, viruddhab.—UH, p. 14. See UH., p. 16. Based on Buddhist Logic Before Diinaga, pp, 459-460—Tucci (JRAS, July, 1929). Nyayamukha, Translation, p. 71.—Tucci (Heidelberg, 1930), Istasyarthasya siddhih sadhanam; tasya nirvartakam agarh,tasyavacanath tasyangasyanucc@rapath vadino nigrabadhikaranarh. tadabhyupagamya- pratibhaya tasnitibhavat. sadhanangasyasamarthanad va. trividham eva hi lingam apratyaksasya siddher angath svabhavah karyam anupa- lambhag ca. tasya samarthanarh sadhyena vyaptim prasadhya dharmini bhavasadhanam.—VN., pp. 5-6. See also Santaraksita’s commentary Vipafcitartha. Atha va sadhyate tena paresim apratito’rtha iti sadhanarh trirapa- hetuvacana-samudayah. tasyasgath paksadharmadivacanath tasyai- kasya’py avacanam asadhanayga-vacanamh, tad api vadino nigraha~ sthanath, tad-avacane heturapasya‘va’vacanam avacane ca siddher abhavat.—VN., pp. 60-51, Atha va tasyaiva sadhanasya yan naqygam_pratijiopanaya-nigamanadi tasy@’sadhan@agasya sadhana-vakye upadanath vadino nigrahasth@narh vyarthabhidhanat.—VN., p. 61.Checks in debate 269 45. Anvaya-vyatireka-vacanayor va sadharmyavati vaidharmyavati ca sadhana- 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 prayoga ekasyaiva’bhidhanena siddher bhavad dvitiyasya’samarthyam iti tasya’py as@dhanaigasyabhidhanam nigrahasthanarh vyarthabbidhanad eva.—VN., p. 65. VN., p. 66. VN., pp. 66-69. VN., pp. 69-71. N., pp. 72-73. Idarh_punar asambaddham eva simanyarh nityam aindriyakam ity ukta tabdo'py evam astu iti kab svasth@tma svayam aindriyakatvad anityal fabdo ghaavad iti bravan sAmanyenopadarsanamatrena nityarh gabdaris pratipadyate...tasmad aindriyakatvasya _nity@nityapaksavrtter vyabhi- carad asadhanaagasyop&danan nigeaharho, na pratipaksa—dharmanu- akGrena pratijiahaneh.—VN., p. 77 see VN., pp. 78-142. jfiaya’nena pr For refutation of other nigrahasthanas, Prakrta’gesatattvartha-prakaja-patuvadinah, vibruvano'bruvano va viparito nigrhyate. asadhan@pga-vacanam Adosodbhavanarh dvayoh, na yuktarh nigrabasth@nam arthaparisamaptitab. vad; pardjito'yukto vastutattve vyavasthitah, tatra dosarh bruvaino va viparyastah katharit jayet. —NyV. 1, 377-379. astarh tavad alabhadir ayam eva hi nigrabab. svabhipraya-nivartanam.—Ibid, 383. Tatha ca sarhkgepatah ‘ svapaksasiddhir eKasya nigraho'ayasya vadinah’ iti vyavatigthate. na punar vipratipattyapratipatts tadbhave'pi kasyacit svapaksa-siddhyabhave parasya parajayanupapatter as@dhansngavacana’- dosodbhavanamatravat, chalavad va TSlv., p. 294. See Télv., pp. 283-294; also PKM., p. 663-671; PM. If, 1.34-Vrtti See PM. II, 1.35 and its Vrtti; also A Critique of Organ of Knowledge ) Translation by Mookerjee and Tatia (Bahadur Singh ‘ave used this translation and have mostly adopted nyayena vij (Pramana Mimarsa) Singhi Series No. 1). (1h: its terminology.) Also, sadharmya-vaidharmyayor anyatarenacthav —_ubhaya~pratipdanari pakstdivacanath vi nigrahasthanam . iti, na tad yuktam, sadhana~ samarthyena vipaksa-vyavstti-laksanena paksarh prasadhayatah kevalarh vacanadhikyopalambhacchalena —pardjaySdhikarayapraptil) svayarh nirakrtapaksena pratipaksin’ taksaniya 2—Agfasati,p. 81; niraky vasthapitavipaksa-svapaksayor eva jayetaravyavastha na’ayatha,— Ibid, p. 87;270 Indian Diale¢ yathoktena hi s@dhana-simarthyena syapaksarh sadhayatah sadvadinah sabbya-samaksarh jaya eveti yuktarh, na kevalarh vacanadhikyopalambha- vyajena parajayadhikarana-praptih sadhiyas;, svasadhyari prasadhya nrtyato’pi dosabhaval lokavat. sa ca svayash nirakrtapaksena prativading laksamiyety api na yuktati, parena nicakrtapaksasyaiva pardjaya- Praptiyogyatvanigcayal lokavad eva.—Astasahasri, p. 81. tad uktam—‘syapaksa-siddher ekasya nigraho'nyasya vadinah, na sadhaniiga-vacanari na dosodbhavanati dvayoh.” tatha Tattvarthaslokavarttike’py —uktari “ svapaksa~siddhiparyent@ gastriyarthavicarana, vastvagrayatvato yadval laukikarthavicarang.” iti—Ibid, p. 88. Also TSlv., pp. 281-283, NyV. II, 378, 383; PKM., pp. 671-674. For chala etc. see Nyayakumudacandra, pp, 316-340, edited by Pt. Mahendra Kumara. $3 Tad uktam— “‘viruddharh hetum udbbavya vadinath jayatitarab, abbasantaram udbhavya paksa-siddhim apeksate.” iti-TSlv, p. 280; asiddhadayo’pi hetavo yadi sadhyavinabhavaniyamalaksanayuktas tada na hetvabhisa bhavitum arhanti. na caivarh, testi tadayogat. na hy asiddhah sadhyavinabhavaniyatas tasya svayam asattvat. _na’py anaikantiko vipakse’pi bhavat. na ca viruddho vipaksa eva bhavad ity asiddhgdi-prakarena’ py anyathanupapannatva-vaikalyam eva hetoh samarthyate, tatas tasya hetvabhasatvam iti sanksepad eka eva hetva- bbasah pratiyate, _anyathanupapannatva-niyama-laksanaika-hetuvat atas tadvacanarh vadino nigrahasthanath parasya paksasiddhay iti Pratipattavyam.—TSlv., pp. 293-294; also PKM, p. 671° 54° See SV, Jalpasiddhi, TSlv., pp- 281-283, 55 Atha nirdosopapattir anumanam ity uktam. ke tatra upapattidosgh ? yat-sadbhave Jingabhimatarh jndnam eva na janayati sarhgaya- viparyayau va karoti te dosa. te dvividhah, artha-vacanadosabhedat, tatra saksad upapatter eva dosau virodbasajgatt taddvara vacanasya’pi, vacanadosau nyanadhikye. vacanadvarenarthasya’pi. tatra yogyata’- bhavo virodhah. akanksaviraho sajgatih. avagyavaktavyasyaikadega- matravacanarh nyanam. akajiksitasyaiva’nyena kytakatyasya vacanam adhikyam. ete ca virodhadayo dvividhah. samayabandha-pragna- svapaksasadhana~parapakea-nit@karanatmaka-katharupa-sadharan ap, anumgnanisthag ca..na kevalam upapattidosanaa virodhadibhih saj- grahah, kiry nama. naiyayika-nirupitasesa—nigrahasthaninath vaktrdo: bhyath sarhvadg'nuktibhyarh yuktesv evantarbhavah. tata ca virodha'- Sangati nyanadhike saravadanukti iti sad eva nigrahasthanani—pp,; PP. 48-51, see also Ibid, pp. 48-79. 56 For hetvabhasas see PP. pp- 73-79. 57 See PP., pp. 49-50. astCHAPTER 7 FALLACIES OF REASONING The modes of argument involving chala, jati, and nigraha- sth@na are directly connected with actual discussions in a debate. These no doubt involve faults in argument, and hetva- | bhiisa (fallacy of probans) also when detected in an argument is | One of the nigrahasthanas and is actually mentioned as one. However, the Ny@ya-siitra mentions hetvabhisa as a separate padartha or topic of the §@stra. This indicates that hetvabhasa, . whether in actual debate or in written discussion or in any other form of abstract reasoning was something which touched the very essence of ratiocination, and therefore was something more than just a device in debate to trap the opponent. In fact, it is a fallacy in the reasoning process itself. The canon of the rules of syllogism, it may bs noted, is at the same time a canon of logical fallacies, for a fallacy is nothing else but the infringement of a rule. Every syllogistic rule condemns a corresponding fallacy. It appears that these rules were gradually formulated to avert the contingency of fallacies which were generally detected in arguments in debates and discussions, and closely analysed to find out where the fault lay. We find the Ny@ya-stra recognising principally five kinds of fallacies of reason (hetv@bhisa)—savyabhictra or anaikantika (inconclusive), viruddha (contrary), prakarana-sama (counter— balanced or neutralised), s@dhyasama (=asiddha, unestablished or unreal) and Kalra (mistimed—later on badhita or contradicted); | and the Buddhists and the Jainas generally recognising three hetvabhiisas—anaiktntika, viruddha, and asiddha.*