INDIAN LOGIC 19TH FEB 2023 PART 5 Concomitance or Invariable Relation
In the PRAMANASAMUCHAYA Dinnaga defined the invariable relation or concomitance of B with A, which legitimizes the inference of the signified A from the sign B, as follows: When the sign (linga) occurs, there the signified, that of which it is a sign, has to occur as well. And if the sign has to occur somewhere it has to occur only where the signified occurs (linge lingf bhavaty eva linginy evetarat puna!?). This verse has been quoted frequently by Naiyayikas, Jainas, and other logicians. It actually amounts to saying that all cases of Bare cases of A, and only cases of A could be cases of B. Dharmakirti described the invariable connection in two ways. First, the sign B could be the "own-nature" or essential mark of A. That amounts to saying that B is either an invariable or a necessary sign of A. thus, we infer that something is a tree from the fact that it is a beech tree, for a beech tree cannot be a beech tree without being a tree. This only defines invariability or necessary connection. The second type of sign is one when we infer the "natural" causal factor from the effect, as we infer fire from smoke. It is also the nature or the essence of smoke that it cannot originate without originating from fire. Hence invariable relation means: (i) an essential or necessary property of the class, and (ii) a causally necessary relation between an effect and its invariable cause. The late Naiyayikas said that the absence of a counter-examples what is ultimately needed to legitimize the inference-giving relation between A and B. If B is the sign, then B would be the logical sign if, and only if, there is no case where B occurs but A does not occur. If B occurs where A does not, that would be a counter-example to the tacitly assumed rule of inference," if B then A." As we know from the truth-table of the propositional logic, "if B then A" is falsified only under one condition, when not-A is true along with B. Thus Gangesa (f. 1325 A.D.) defines this relation: B's non-occurrence in any location characterized by absence of A. Alternatively, another definition is given: B's co-occurrence with such an A as is never absent from the location of B. The first is a rephrasing of the first definition of vyapti (invariable concomitance) in the Vyaptipancaka of Gangesa. The second is an abbreviation of what is called his siddhantalak$a1;a, "accepted definition. " On the "Steps" in the Process of Inference: Members of the Syllogism An essential part of the theory of inference is obviously the knowledge of concomitance or invariance between the inferable property, A, and the reason, B, the “hetu”. Our knowledge of such invariances is derived, rightly or wrongly, from our observation of such examples illustrating the togetherness of B and A; we call them sapakshas. The Nyayasira author insisted upon the citation of the example to justify or support the reason, to show that there is a relation of concomitance or invariance backing the reason. A question arises regarding how many steps we need in what is called "pararthanumana" or "demonstration to others" of the entire process of inference one makes within oneself. A demonstration is something like the verbal articulation of the process of inference. The Naiyayikas assert that there should be five steps in this verbal articulation of the inference, where the fifth step would restate the thesis proven by the reason backed by the required invariance relation. The Buddhist, on the other hand, would need only three steps - statement of the thesis, of the reason, and also of the example. Prasastapada (circa 450-500 AD) made a very significant comment in his Padarthadharmasa1!1 graha, while he was explaining the five-step verbal articulation of the Nyaya demonstration. The last step is a re-statement of the thesis and, hence, the opponent obviously points out that it is redundant, for the thesis as already been stated and that it is proven by the adequate reason. The thesis is stated in the first step and the reason in the second step. Hence, says Prasastapada if, we depend upon what is presented not simply verbally but also by implication as well as the significance of what is presented verbally (compare arthat), then one can only state the first two steps and satisfy the other (opponent) side. We quote (1971: 241): Therefore, after stating the thesis, one should verbally articulate only the reason. Intelligent people will be reminded of the invariance based upon prior observation of co-presence and the lack of it (in suitable examples), and therefore they will acknowledge the thesis as established. This verbal articulation should end here (with the statement of the reason). This was apparently a challenge to the Buddhist to bring down the number of steps in the argument from three to the first two: the thesis and the reason. It is interesting that Dharmakirti boldly accepted the challenge and said: For intelligent people only the reason would be stated (PV 11.2). There may be a chronological problem here, however. Prostapadi is considered to be a junior contemporary of Dnnaga, for he assimilated all the logical developments of Dnnaga into his re-statement of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika system of logic. It is also generally believed that he preceded Dharmakirti. I accept this chronology, and my above comment is based upon its truth. If, however, it can be shown that Dharmakirti preceded Prasastapadath, then the above statement has to be modified accordingly. My argument here is not concerned with this issue, however, and the chronological controversy would not upset anything else I have said here about logic. It is significant to note though that Udayana quotes the relevant line of Dharmakirti while he comments on this particular passage of Prasastapada.) KR IRS 19//20//2/23 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZooRyZZYcHrKESMPU6S0qWmLVLw9g3qvb%2B4f4p0Kg6DvUQ%40mail.gmail.com.
