NYAYA SUTRAS O:F GOTAMA

20 Pages·2009·1.52 MB·English

Library of CongressCataloginginPublication Data
Gotama, calledAk"pida.
The ny8'yasGtrasof Gotama.
Originaled. issuedasv.8of The Sacredbooks of the NYAYA SUTRAS O:F GOTAMA
Hindus.
Englishand Sanskrit; commentary in English.
1.Nyaya. I. Vidyabhusana, SatisChandra, 1870-
1920, ed. II. Title. III. Series:The Sacredbooks of
the Hindus,v.8..
B132.N8G6513 1974 181',43 73-3795
ISBN0-404-57808·X
TltANSLATEDBY
MAHAMAHopADHyAYA SATISA CHANDRA VIDyABHUSA.NA ,
M.A., PH.D.
PRINCIPAL, SANSKRIT COLLEGE, CALCUTTA
PUBLISHBD BY
Reprinted from the edition of 1913, Allahabad THill PAIlIINI OFFICE, BHUVANEo';WARI ASRAMA, BAHADURGAI\'J
First AMSedition published, 1974
Manufactured inthe United States of America
International Standard BookNumber: PRINTED BY ApURVA KRISHNA BOSE AT THE INDIAN PRBSS
Complete8et: 0-404-57800-4
1913
Volume8: 0-404-57808-X
AMSPress,INC.
NewYork, N.Y. 10003
Balancing the homogeneity.-A certain person, to prove the non-
eternality ofsound, argues as follows ;_
Sound is non-eternal,
~~wifurfiq\~~~~~~· because it is aproduct,
like a pot.
smaSl(1fi· srfdtelR1I~AI ~srrfi~(!JI{~ll\~~~· Acertain other person offersthe following futile opposition ;_
Sound is eternal,
~~~q&l~~(qtA(q €f\'~(1+m II'l.l ~~II because it is.incorporeal,
like tht!sky.
1. Futilities are as follows :-(1) Balancing the The argument, ui:l'., sound is non-eternal, is based on the homo-
homogeneity, (2)balancing the heterogeneity, (3) balancing geneity ofsound with the non-eternal pot on the ground ofboth bein~ pro-
ducts. The opposition, vi:l'., sound is etl'rnal, is said to be based on
an addition, .(4) balancing a subtraction, (5) balancing the
the homogeneity ofsound with the eternal sky Oil the alleged ground of
questionable,.(6)balancing theunquestionable, (7) balancing
both being incorporeal. This sort of opposition, futile as it is, is called
the alternative, (8) balancing the reciprocity, (9) balancing "ballincing the homogeneity" which aims at showing an equality of the
the co-presence, (10) balancing the mutual absence, (11) ba- arguments of two sides in respect of the homogeneity of examples
lancing the infinite regression, (12) balancing the counter- employed by them.
example, (13) balancing the non-produced, (14) balancing Balancing theheterogeneity.-·A certain person, to prove the non-eter-
nality ofsound, argues as follows;-
the doubt, (15) balancing the controversy, (16) balancing
Sound is non-eternal,
the non-reason, (17) balancing the presumption, (18) balanc- because it is a product,
ing the non-difference, (19) balancing the demonstration, whatever is not non-eternal is not a product,
(20) balancing the perception, (21) balancing the non- as the sky.
perception, (22) balancing the non-eternality, (23) balanc- Acertain other person offersa futile opposition thus;-
Sound is eternal,
ing the eternality and (24) balancing the effect.-I.
because it is incorporeal,
Futility, which is a fallacious argument, has been in general terms whatever isnot eternal is not incorporeal,
defined in aphorism 1-2·18. The twenty four kinds offutility enun-
as apot.
ciated here will each be defined in due course. The fallacious characters The argument, viz.,sound isnon-eternal, isbased onthe heterogeneity
of the twenty four kinds will alsobe exposed in separate aphorisms. of sound from the not-non-eternal sky which are mutually incompatible.
_~ ac++fii1q.,.q41qqi6: The opposition, viz., sound is eternal, issaid tobe based on the heteroge-
~h~.a neity ofsound from the not-incorporeal pot which are alleged to be in-
II'l.l ~I ~U compatible with each other. This sort ofopposition, futile as it is, iscalled
"balancing the heterogeneity" which aims at showing an equality of
2. If against an argument based on a homogeneous the arguments of two sides in respect of the heterogeneity ofexamples
or heterogeneous example one offersan opposition based on employed by them.
the same kind of example, the opposition will be called .ft~c:m;J~~€I'ija:.fu{Ta: II'l.l ~I ~II
"balancing the homogeneity" or "balancing the heteroge- 3. That is, we say, to be established like a cow
neity." -2. through cowhood(orcow-type).-3.
The Naiy&yikasays :--If the opposition. referred to in the previous Acertain other person offersafutile opposition thus :-
aphorism is to be valid it must bebased on the example, homogeneous Sound is non-eternal (and corporeal),
orheterogeneous, exhibiting a universal connec.tionbetween the reason and because it is aproduct.
the predicate such as wediscern between acowand cowhood ora universal like apot (which isnon-eternal as well as corporeal).
disconnection between the reason and the absence ofthe predicate such as
The opponent alleges that if sound is non-eternal like apot, it
we discern between acow and absence ofcowhood. In the argument-
muSt also be corporeal like it: if it is not corporeal let it. be also not
"sound isnon-eternal, becau&eit is a product, like apot" the homogeneous
non-eternal. This sort of futile opposition is called "balancing an
example ••pot" exhibits a universal connection between productivity
addition" which aims at showing an equality of the arguments of two
and non-eternality, all products being non-eternal; but in the opposition
sides in respect ofan additional character (possessed by the example and
._" sound iseternal, because it is incorporeal, like the sky"-the homo-
attributed to the subject).
geneous example sky does 1I0t exhibit a universal connection between
incorporeality and etemality because there are things, such as intellect Balancing a subtl·aetion.-If against an argument based on a
or knowledge, which are iIicorporeal but not eternal. Asimilar obser- certain character of the example one offers an opposition based on
vation istobe made with regard to the opposition called "balancing the another character wanting in it, the opposition Ivill be called "balancing
heterogeneity." In the opposition" sound is eternal, because it is incor- a subtraction."
porel\.l, whatever is uot eternal is not incorporeal, ae a pot" the
Acertain person, to prove the non-eternality of sound, argues
heterogeneous example pot does not exhibit a universal disconnection
as follows :-
between incorporeality and absence of eternality because there are
Sound isnon-eternal,
things, such as intellect or knowledge, which are incorporeal but not
because it is aproduct,
eternal.
like apot.
~ ~~lI(iq,,·
Acertain other person offersthe following futile opposition:-
Sound is non-eternal (but not audible),
q~~qfq~~"~(1'QI(1+U: It '( I ~ I 'l It
because it is aproduct,
like apot (which is non-eternal but not audible.)
4. The subject and examplealternating their charac-
The oppoDt'nt alleges that if sound is non-eternal like a pot, it
ters or both standing in need of proof, there occur
cannot be audible, for apot is not audible j and if sound is etill held to
(futilities called) "balancing an addition" "balancing a
be audible, let it be also not non-eternal. This sort offutile opposition is
subtraction" "balancing the questionable," "balancing
called balancing a subtractit>n" which aims at showing an equality of
'f
the unquestionable" "balancing the alternative" and the arguments oftwo sides in respect of a certain character wanting in
"balancing the reciprocity."-4. the example (and consequently also in the subject),
Balancing an addition.-If against an argument based on acertain Balancing the questionable.-If one opposes an argument by main-
character ofthe example one offers an opposition based on an additional taining that the character ofthe example is as questionable as that ofthe
character ther.eof, the opposition will be called" balancing an addition." subject, the opposition will becalled" balancing the questionable."
A certain person, to prove the non-eternality of sound, argues A certain. person, to prove the non-eternality of sound, argues
asfollows :-
as follows:-
Sound is non-eternal, Sound is non-eternal,
because it isa product, because it is aproduct,
like apot. like a pot.
Acertain other person offersafutile opposition thus:- A certain other person offersafutile opposition thus:-
Apot is non-sternal, Sound is eternal and formless,
because it isaproduct, because it isa produc,t,
like sound. like apot (which is non-eternal and has forms).
The opponent alleges that if the non-eternality ofsound is called in The opponent alleges that the pot and sound are both products,
question., why is not that of the pot too called in question, as the pot yetone has form and the other is formless; why on the same principle
and sound are both products? His object is toset aside the argument is notone (the pot) non-eternal and the other (sound) eternal? This sort
on theground ofits example being of a questionable character. This offutile opposition is called "balancing the alternative" which aims
sort of futile opposition is called "balancing the questionable" which at showiug an equality of the arguments of two sides in respect of tbe
aims at showing an equality of the arguments of two sides in respect altel'llative characters attributed to the subject and example.
ofthe questionable character ofthe subject as wellasof the example. Balancing thereciprocity.-If one opposes an argument by aUeging
Balancing the unquestionable.-If one opposes an argument by areciprocity of the subject and the example, the opposition will be called
alleging that the character of the subject is as unquestionable as that .,balancing thereciprocity."
ofthe example, the opposition will be calleu "balancing the unques- Aceltain pel'son, to prove tIle non·eternality of sound, argues 88
tionable." follows ;-
Acertain person, toprove the non-eternality of sound, argues as Sound is non-eternal,
follows ;- because it is a product,
Sound isnon-eternal, like apot.
'because it is aproduct, Acertain other person offersa futile opposition thus:-
like apot. Apot is non-eternal,
Acertain other person offersa futile opposition thus :_ because it isa product,
I
A pot is non-etemal, like sound.
because it is a product, The opponent alleges that the potand sound being both products,
like sound. one requires proof for its non-etemalit.y as much as the other doss.
The opponent alleges that ifthe nou-eternalhy of a pot is held to Sound is to be proved non-eternal bythe example of a pot and the pot
be unquestionable, why is not that ofsound tooheld tobe so, as the pot is to be proved non-eternal by the examples of sound. This leads
and sound are both products? His object is to render the argument to areciprocity of the pot (example) and sound (subject) resulting in
unnecessary on the ground of its subject being ofan unquestionable no definite conclusion as to the eternality or non-eternality of sound.
'character. This sort of futile opposition is called "balancing the This sort offutile opposition iscalled " balancing the reciprocity" which
unquestionable" which aims at showing the equality of the argu- brings an argument toasLand-still by alleging the reciprocity of the
ments of two sides in respect of the unquestionable character of the subject and the Clxample.
example as well as ofthe subject. fChfq«1l~i51q«tl<fu4~\l: n ~ It I ~II
Balancing thealterllative.--If one opposes an &I'gument by attri-
buting alternative characters to the subject and theexample, the opposi- 5. This is, we say, no opposition because there is a
tion will be called" balancing thealternative." differencebetween the subject and the examplealthough the
Acertain persoJ;l,toprove the non-eternality of sound, argnes as conclusion is drawn from a certain equality of their cha-
follows :-
racters.-5.
Sound is non-eternal,
because itis aproduct, The Naiy&yikasays; - The futiliti,es called" balancing an addition,"
like apot. "balancing a subtraction," "balancing the questionable," "balancing
the unquestionable" and ••balancing the alternative" are all based
In this argument sound (the subject) may not be known by some
on the false supposition ofacomplete equality of the subject and the
to be non-eternal but apot (the e.xample)is known by all to be a product
example. Though there is no denial of an equality of the subject and
~ well as non-et·ernaJ. ••Balancing the reciprocity" is therefore a falla-
the example in certain characters, there is indeed a great difference CIousargument.
between th"m in other charactere.
Sound is non-eternal, srr:qm~+tsncq ~~: ~ ~,eEi:l,qSIl~r
because it is a product,
like a pot. ~~~ll~'l'~ll
In this argument although there is an equality of ••BOund" and 7. If against an argument based on•the co-presence
••pot" in respect oftheir being both products, there isa great difference of the reason and the predicate or on the mutual absence of
between them in other respects. A cow pOBBessessome characters in
them one offersan opposition based on the same kind of
common with a bOBgavaeus but there is nocomplete identity between them.
co-presence or mutual absence, the opposition will on
No body can commit the futilities mentioned above if be beare in mind
account of ~hereason bein~ non-distinguished from orbeing
the equality ofthe subject and the example only in tbose charactere which
are warranted by the reason (middle term). In thecaseof thefutility called non-conducl~e t~,the pr~dlcate, be cal1ed "balancing the
••balancing an addition" it isclear that the equality supposed toexist co-presence or balanCIngthe mutual absence."-7 .
between the pot and sound in respect ofcorporeality isnot warranted by Balancing the eo-presenee.-lf against an argument based on the
the reason (viz. being a product), because there are things, such all co-presence of~hereason and tbe predicate, one offereau opposition ba~ed
intellect or knowledge, which are products but not corporeal. Similarly on the s~me klDdo~c~pr~sence, the opposition will, on accouut of the
with regard to the futility called" balancing a subtraction," the reason reason belDg non-dlstlDglUshed from the predicate, be called" balancin
(viz. being u product) does not justify an equality ofBOundand pot in the co-presence." g
respect of their being not audible. As regards the futilities called Acertain person, toprove that there is fire in the hill, argues as.
••balancing the questionable" and ••balancing the unquestionable," we follows :-
cannot ignore the difference between the subject and the example without The hill has fire,
putting an end to an kinds ofinference. The futility called ••balanc- because it has smoke,
ing the alternative" introduces an equality between the pot and BOund like akitchen.
in respect of a character (viz. being eternal) which is not warranted by
Acertain other pereon offereafutile opposition thus :_
the reason viz. being aproduct.
The hill has smoke,
mQlI~)l(ll~:qi£'!l;fflqq~: n ~ I l I '- n because it has fire,
like a kitchen.
6. And because the example happens to surpass the
subject.-6 Th~ arguer has taken the smoke to be the reasotl and the fire to be
~he predICate: The opponent raises a question as to whether the smoke
The futility 0811ed"balancing the reciprocity" -is based on the
ISpre~ent at the same site which is occupied by the fireor is absent from
false supposition that the example stands exactly on the same footing as
that ~lte. If t;~ smoke is present with fire at the same site, there
the subject. But that one surpaBBesthe other is evident from·aphorism
remams, accor IDg t:o the opponent, no criterion to distinguish the
1-1-25 which states that the example does not stand in need of proof
reason from the predicate. The smoke is, in his opinion, as much a
as to its charactere.
Sound is non-eternal, rt·eason. foIrI dth•e•bfJire a•s the fire for the sm.oke. This sort offutl'le 0PPOSI._
Ion ISca e aanclllg the co-presence" which aims at stopJling an
because it is aproduct,
argu~ent on the alleged grollnQ of the co-presence of the reMan and th
lifl:ea pot. Jlredlcllte. e
Balancing themutual absence.-If against an argument based on
g. 1£one opposes an argument on the ground of .the
the mutual absence ofthe reasor. and the predicate, one offers an opposi-
examplenot having been established by a series of reasons
tion based outhe same kind' of mutual absence, the opposition will, on
account of the reason being non-couducive to the predicate, be called or onthe ground of the existence of amere counter-example,
••balancing the mutual absence." the opposition will be called "balancing the infinite regres-
Acertain person, to prove that there is fire in tbe hill, argues as sion" or" balancing the counter-example."--··g.
follows:-
Balancing theinfini~' re]ruswn.-A certaiu person, to prove the
Thehill has fire,
l:tecauseit has smoke, n9n-eternality ofsound, argues IrS follows ;-
Sound is non-eternll.l,
like a kitchen.
Acertain other person offersafutile opposition thus :- because it is aproduct,
The bill has smoke, like a pot.
because it has fire, Acertain other person offers II.futile opposition th.us:-
like a kitchen. If sound is proved to be non-eternal by the example of a pot, how
'fhe opponent asks: ••Is the smoke tobe regarded as the reason is the pot again to be proved as non-eternal? The reason which proves
because it ill absent trom the site ofthe fire?" Such a supposition is the non-etel'1lality of the pot is to be proved by further reasons. This
II
indeed absurd." The reason canuot establish the predicate without gives rise to an infinite regression which injures the propositiou ••sound
being connected with it, just as a lamp cannot exhibit a thing which is .isnon-eternal" not less tha~ the proposition ••sound is etel'1lal." This
not within its reach. If areasoll unconnected with the predicate could sort of futile opposition is called ••balancing the infinite regression"
establish the latter, then the fire could be as much the reason for the which aims at stoppiug an argument by introducing an infinite regression
smoke as tbe smoke for the fire.. This sort of futile opposition' is called which is said to beset the example.
••balancing the mutual absence" which aims at bringing an argument Balancing the eounter-e:r:ample.-A certain person, toprove the non-
toaclose on the alleged grounrl of the mutual absence ofthe reason and eternality ofsound, argues llBfollows;-
the predicate. Sound is non-eternal,
~ ••~f'1l({~~:qr,(I"Sll1·ttw,,: II~I~Ic: II because it is aproduct,
like apot.
8. 'rhis is, wesay, no opposition because we find the Acertain other person offersa futile opposition thus:-
production of pots by means ofclay as well as the oppres- Sound is eternal,
sionofpersons by spells.-8. like the sky.
The opponent alleges that ifsound is held to lie non-eternal by the
Apotter canllot produce Ii pot without getting clay within his
example ofa pot, why it should not be held to be eternal by the example
reach but an exorcist can destroy persons byadministering spells from
of the sky? II the example of the sky isset llBide,let the example of
a distance. Hence itis clear that a thing is aC!¥lmplished sometimes by
~hepot toobe set·aside. ~his ~rt of.futile oppos.ijon i~called ••balanc-
the cause being present at its site and sometimes by being absent from
mg the counter-example whICh alms at settlfs llBldean argument
it. ••Balancing the co-presence" and" balancing the mutual absence"
bythe introduction ofa counter-example. \:'
which attach an undue iinportaDC'e to the proximity or remoteness of .'
"
sites, are therefore totally fallacious arguments. SI"lql"I9f~: II ~'l ~ I II
~o
~fit~~ra:.
telPd~ SI~q~¥.419f1S~ll6telraif 10. The example doesnot, we say, require a aeries of
~~~ 1I ~ I ~~l ~ II reasonsfor its establishment just as a lamp doesnot require
a seriesQf lamps tobe brought in for its illumination..---l0.
The Naiyayib 88YS:- A certain person, to prove that sound is non-eternal, arguElBas
An example is athing the eharacters ofwhich are well-known toan follows :-
ordinary man aswell as to all expert. It does not require a series of Sound is non-eternal,
reasons toreveal its own character or to reveal the character of the sub- because it is an effect ofeffort,
ject with which it stands in the relation ofhomogeneity or heterogeneity. like a pot.
III this respect it resembles a lamp which illumines itself as well as the Acertain other person offersa futile opposition thus :-
things lyiDg within its reach. Sound is eternal,
Sound is non-eternal, because it is a non-effect ofeffort,
because it is aproduct, like the sky.
like apot. '
The opponent alleges that the property connoted by the reason,
III this argument the pot is the example which is sowell-known that via., being an effect of effort, is Dot predicable of the subject, via.,
it requires no proof as to its being a product or being Don-eternal. sound (while it is not yet produced). Consequently sound is not non-
Hence the opposition called ••balancing the infinite regreBBion" eternal, it must then be eternal. There is, according to the opponent,
is not founded on a sound basis. an apparent agi'eemllnt between the two sides as to the sound being non-
eternal on account ofits being anon-effect·of-effort. This sort of futile
S1l6'U!l·iji~ ~ ;lIige.e,.ij:1I ~ I tit t II
opposition is called ••halancing the non-produced" which pretends
toshow an equality of the Arguments of two sides assuming the thing
11. The example, we say, cannot be set aside as un-
denoted by the subject to be as yet non-produced.
reasonable only because a counter-example IS advanced as
the reason.-ll. ~'l1'+rrefil~~('Q' Cfil<.mQQ=64 ~: II~I~It~II
The Naiyayika 88yS:-
13. This is, wesay, no opposition against our reason
The opponent must give aspecial reason why the counter-example
so well predicable of the subject which becomes as such
should be taken as specialty fitted to lead toaconclusion, and the example
onlywhen it is produced.-13.
should not be tsken aesuch. Until such a special I'eason is given, the
counter-example cannot be accepted as leilding toa definite conclusion. The Naiyayika disposes of the futile opposition called" balancing
In fact a mere counter-example without areason (middle term) attending' the non-produced" bystating that tne subject can become 88 sucholily
it cannot be conducive to any conclusion. Hence wemust rely on an when it is produced, alId that there is then no obstacle to the propel'ty
example attended hy reasoll but not on a counter-example unattendsd by of the reason being predicated of it. The opposition, viz., ".sound
reason. (while non.produced) is eternal, because it is notthen an effect ofeffort,"
Sound is eternal, carries no weight with it,since wedo not take th.esound tobe the subject
like the sky. before it is produced. Sound, while it is produced, is certainly an effect
This opposition which is founded on a mere counter-example is ofeffort and as such is non.eternal.
therefore to be rejected as unreasonable.
~tJlI;q(e(PdQTh';i(qCfi<4~~~
SlI~~: CfiI((fJI~ICfli:l~"'~JI: II ~ I tit ~II
(12(ltl(1ih II ~ I tit ~ II
12. If one opposes an argument on the ground of the
property connoted by the reasonbeing absent fromthe thing 14. If one opposesan argument on the ground ofa
den.otedby the subject while it is not yet produced, the op- doubt arising from th~ homogeneity of the eternal and the
positiop.will be called" balancing the non-produced." non-eternal consequent on the example and its ·genus(or
20
type) being equally objects of perception, the opposition respect of its homogeneity with as well as heterogeneity from other
wiUbe called "balancing the doubt."-14. things. If even then there remains any doubt 38 to its true nature, that
A certain person, to pl'ove the non-eternality of BOund, argues as doubt will never end.
follows:- ~~: srifl((!Jft": II ~, ~ , ~~ "
Sound is non-eternal,
becauBeit is aproduct, 16. "Balancing the cont,roversy" is an opposition
like a pot. which isconducted on the ground of homogeneity with (Qr
A certain other person offersa futile opposition thus :- heterogeneity from)both sides.-16.
Sound isnon-eternal or eternal (?)
A certain person, to pI'ovethe non-eternality of sound, argues as
because it is an object ofperception,
follows;- (
like apot orpot-ness.
Sound is non·eternal,
The opponent alleges that BOundishomogeneous with apot as well
because it is a product,
as pot-ness inasmuch as both are objects ofperception i but the pot
like apot.
being non-eternal and pot-neBS(the genus ofpots orpot-type) being eternal
A_ oertain other perRonoffers a futile opposition thus;-
there arises a doubt as to whether the sound is non-eternal or etema!.
Sound is eternal,
This BOrtof futile opposition is called ••balancin~ the doubt" which
becauBeit is audible.
aims at rejecting an argument in .consequence of a douht arising from
like soundness.
the homogeneity ofthe-eternal and the non-eternal,
The opponent alleges that the proposition, "ill.sound is rion-eternal,
~~;r~~1lT ~~S
cannot be proved because the reason, ViII., audibility which is homo-
geneous \vith both sound (whicb is non-eterna]) and BOundness(which is
~Pdfi"l~ P1~ECilil~.I+tI~ $ftl+tl;:q~~:
eternal), provokes the very controversy for the settlement of which it was
II \f. I ~ , .~~" employed. This BOrt of futile opposition is called ••balancing the con-
troversy " which hurts an argument bygiving rise to the very controversy
15. This is, wesaYT nooppositionbecause we donot
which was to be settled.
admit that etemality can be established by the homogeneity
sr[dq'qll(t srcrouftli:: ~: srRtq"'1qq~-:
with the genus: a doubt that arises from a knowledge of ,,~, ~ ,-~"U
the homogeneity vanishes from that of.the heterogeneity,
and that which arises in both waysnever ends.-I5.
17. This is, we say, no opposition because it pro-
The NaiyAyika 83YS;-
vokes a controversy which has an opposing side.~17.
Sound cannot be ~id to be eternal on the mere ground ofits homo-
The Naiyl\yika sllys:-The opposition called" balanc"ing-thecon-
geneity with pot-neBS (the- genus of pots or pot-type) but it must be
troversy" cannot set aside the mllin argument because it leads t.o a
pronounced to .be non-eternal on the ground ofitsheterogeneity from
controversy which supports one side quite as strongly 88 it is opposed
the- same in respect of being a product, Though on the Beore·of
by the other side.
homogeneity we may entertain doubt as to whether BOund is eternal
n ~ ,
or non-eternal, but on the score of heterogeneity we can pronounce it lifll@OiI-Riilffl((g(1+t: ~l -~C; II
undoubtedly- to be non-eternaL In this case wemust bear inmind that 18. ••Balancing the non-reason" -is an opposition
we cannot ascel'tain the true nature of a thing unleBSwe weigh itin
which is based onthe reason being shown tobe impossible
*-The term "mdnya. In·the senile of ••gelleral DotloD,geDua or type" waa at all the three times.-18.
evldeDtlytakenfromthe Vai8etika philosophy.
~: 51faq~R:fi:(\QNAlfI":
A cer~in person, to prove the uon-eternality ofsound, argues as II~ I ~I ~~ II
follows: -
21. If one advancesan opposition on the basis ofa
Sound is non-eternal,
because it is a product, presumption, the opposition will be called " balancing the
like a pot. presumption."-21.
Here "being a product" is the reason or sign for being non-
II Acertain person, toprove the nou-eternality of sound, argues as
eternal" whichis the predicate or significate.
follows:-
A certain other person offersa futile opposition thus ;-
Sound ie non-eternal,
The reason or sign is impoesible at all the three times because it
because it is a product,
gannot precede, succeed, or be simultaneous with the predicate or
like a pot.
significate.
(a) The reason (or sign) does not precede the predicate (or signi- Acertain other person offersa futile opposition thus :-
ficate) becauBethe former gets its name only when it establishes the latter. Sound is presumed tobe eternal,
It is imposaible for the reason to be called as such before the establish- because'it isincorp9real,
ment ofthe predicate. like the sky.
"
(b) The reason (orsign) doesnotsucceed the predicate (01' significate) The opponent alleges that if sound is non-eternal on a<:c;ot1.ntof its
because what would be the use ofthe former if it latter existed already. homogeneity with non-eternal things (e.g. in respect of its being a pro-
(e) The reason (or sign) and the predicate (or significate) cannot duct), it may be concluded by presumption that sound is eternal on
exist <,simultaneously for they will then be reciprocally connected like account ofits homogeneity with eternal things (e.g. in respect ofits being
the right and left horns ofa cow. incorporeal). This sort of futile opposition is called "balancing the
This sort offutile opposition is called "balancing the non-reason" presumption which-aims at slopping IInargument by setting presump-
II
which aims at Betting aside an argument by showing that the reason is tion as a balance against it.
impossible at all the three times.
,,~~ I\Q~q~:q~t14MqRHa'ffiEf4I~*lIn:a*l~·
if ~: ~~'Elt*ll~~: II~I ~ I ~l II '1m:
19. There is, we say,no impossibility at the three II ~ I ~I ~~ II
times because the predicate or significateis established by 22 If things unsaid could comeby presumption, there
the reason or sign.-19. would, we say,arise a possibility of the opposition itself
The Naiyayika says :-The knowledge of the knowable and the being hurt onaccount ofthe presumption being erratic and
establishment of that which is to be established take place from reason conduciveto an unsaid conclusion.-22.
which mllst precede that which is.to be known and that which is to be
Sound is eternal,
established.
because it is incorporeal,
~~:~: n ~ n
I ~I ~o like the sky.
20. There is, we further say, no opposition ofthat If by presumption wecould draw aconclusion unwarranted by the
which is to be opposed, because the opposition itself is reason, wecould from the opposition cited above draw the folIOIving
impo~sibleat all thethree times.-20. conclusion :-
Sounu is presumed to be non-eternal,
It being impossible for the opposition to precede, succeed or be
because it is a product,
simultaneo&s with that which is to be opposed, the opposition itself is
like a pot.
invalid and conBequently the original argument holds good.
This would hurt the oppositiO'l itself. In fact the presumption as happens in certain instances to abide in the reason while in
adduced by the opponent is erratic. If one says that .,sound is otherinstances llot to abide in it.-24.
lion-eternal because ofita homogeneity with non-eternal things ", the pre- Sound is non-eternal,
sumption t.hatnaturally follows is that ••BOundis eternal because of Hs
because it is a product,
homogeneity with eternal thi'ngs" and vice verBa. ,There is no rule th~ like a pot.
presumption should be made in one caseand not in the case opposed to Here the pot and sound possessing in cOplmonthe propedy of being
it ;and in the event of two mutually opposed presumptions no definite
aproduct are treated as non-different. tn respect of the possession of non-
conclusion would follow. Hence the opposition called ••balancing the eternality. On the sameprinciple if all thinge are ti'eated as non-different
presumption" )s untenable. in consequence of their being existent, we would like to know in what
~ flocrl~i\'''Slefi·l~fli(lc(lqq.· respect they are non-different. If they are treated as non-dilierent 1Il
respe.ctofnon-eternality, then the argument would stand thus:-
~it"fI": II~I ~I~~' II All things are non-eternal,
because they are existent,
23. If the subject and example are treated as non·
like (?)
different in respect of the possessionofacertain property on
In this argument" all things" being the subject, there is nothing
account of their possessing in common the property con- left which may serve as an example. AP31"! of thesubject cannot becited
noted bythe reason, it followsas aconclusion that all things as the example because the example must be a well-established thing
are mutually non-different in respect of the poss.essionof while the subject is a thing which is yet tobe estsblished. The argument,
,for want of an example, leads to no conclusion. In fact all things are
every property onaccount oftheir being existent: this sort
not non-eternal since some at least are eternal. In other woJrds, non-
ofopposition iscalled" balancing the non-difference."-23.
eternality abides in Bome existent things and does not abide in other
A certain 'person, toprove the non-eternality ofBound, argues as existent-things. Hence all things arenot mutually non-different and the
follows :- opposition called ••balancing the non-dilierence" is unreasonable.
Sound is non-eternal, ~q~l(tUlqq~~: II~I ~I ~~II
because it isaproduct,
25. If an opposition is offered by showing that both
like a pot.
the demonstrations are justified by reasons, the opposition
Acertain other person offersa futile opposition thus :-
willbe called" balancing the demonstration."-25.
If the pot and sound are treated as non-difJel-ent in respect of non-
eternality in consequence of their both being prodncts, it follows &8 a A certain person demonstrates the non-eternality of sound as
follows:-
conclusion that all thingsilremutually non-different-·in respect of ,the
Sound is non-eternal,
possession of every pr()perty in consequence of their being exi.stent.
Therefore, no difference existing between the eternal and the non- because it is a product,
eternal, sound may be tl'eated as eternal. ThiRsort of oppo.~itionis called like a pot.
••balancing thenon.difference" which aims at hurting an argnment by A certain other personofi'ers 'an opposition by the alleged demons-
tration ofthe eternality ofBOundas follows :-
assuming all things to be mutually non-dilierent.
Sound is eternal,
C6~'1•••t•!!qq~: C6Pec!lqlqq~:~: II ~l~I ~~ II" because it is incorporeal,
24. This is, wesay, no oppositionbecausethe property. like the sky.
possessed in common by the subject and the example The reason in the first demonstration supports the non-eternality
ofBOund while that in the second demonstration supports the eternality