___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: See Tâtparya@tîkâ on anumâna and vyâptigraha.]
[Footnote 2: Tâtparya@tîkâ on vyâptigraha, and Tattvacintâma@ni of
Ga@nges'a on vyâptigraha.]
348
infer the particular cause from the effect. Nyâya holds however that though different causes are often found to produce the same effect, yet there must be some difference between one effect and another. If each effect is taken by itself with its other attendant circumstances and peculiarities, it will be found that it may then be possible to distinguish it from similar other effects. Thus a flood in the street may be due either to a heavy downpour of rain immediately before, or to the rise in the water of the river close by, but if observed carefully the flooding of the street due to rain will be found to have such special traits that it could be distinguished from a similar flooding due to the rise of water in the river. Thus from the flooding of the street of a special type, as demonstrated by its other attendant circumstances, the special manner in which the water flows by small rivulets or in sheets, will enable us to infer that the flood was due to rains and not to the rise of water in the river. Thus we see that Nyâya relied on empirical induction based on uniform and uninterrupted agreement in nature, whereas the Buddhists assumed a priori principles of causality or identity of essence. It may not be out of place here to mention that in later Nyâya works great emphasis is laid on the necessity of getting ourselves assured that there was no such upâdhi (condition) associated with the hetu on account of which the concomitance happened, but that the hetu was unconditionally associated with the sâdhya in a relation of inseparable concomitance. Thus all fire does not produce smoke; fire must be associated with green wood in order to produce smoke. Green wood is thus the necessary condition (upâdhi) without which, no smoke could be produced. It is on account of this condition that fire is associated with smoke; and so we cannot say that there is smoke because there is fire. But in the concomitance of smoke with fire there is no condition, and so in every case of smoke there is fire. In order to be assured of the validity of vyâpti, it is necessary that we must be assured that there should be nothing associated with the hetu which conditioned the concomitance, and this must be settled by wide experience (bhûyodars'ana).
Pras'astapâda in defining inference as the "knowledge of that (e.g. fire) associated with the reason (e.g. smoke) by the sight of the reason" described a valid reason (li@nga) as that which is connected with the object of inference (anumeya) and which exists wherever the object of inference exists and is absent in all cases
349
where it does not exist. This is indeed the same as the Nyâya qualifications of _pak@sasattva, sapak@sasattva and vipak@sâsattva of a valid reason (hetu). Pras'astapâda further quotes a verse to say that this is the same as what Kâs'yapa (believed to be the family name of Ka@nâda) said. Ka@nâda says that we can infer a cause from the effect, the effect from the cause, or we can infer one thing by another when they are mutually connected, or in opposition or in a relation of inherence (IX. ii. 1 and III. i. 9). We can infer by a reason because it is duly associated (prasiddhipûrvakatva) with the object of inference. What this association was according to Ka@nâda can also be understood for he tells us (III. i. 15) that where there is no proper association, the reason (hetu) is either non-existent in the object to be inferred or it has no concomitance with it (aprasiddha) or it has a doubtful existence sandigdha). Thus if I say this ass is a horse because it has horns it is fallacious, for neither the horse nor the ass has horns. Again if I say it is a cow because it has horns, it is fallacious, for there is no concomitance between horns and a cow, and though a cow may have a horn, all that have horns are not cows. The first fallacy is a combination of pak@sâsattva and sapak@sâsattva, for not only the present pak@sa (the ass) had no horns, but no horses had any horns, and the second is a case of vipak@sasattva, for those which are not cows (e.g. buffaloes) have also horns. Thus, it seems that when Pras'astapâda says that he is giving us the view of Ka@nâda he is faithful to it. Pras'astapâda says that wherever there is smoke there is fire, if there is no fire there is no smoke. When one knows this concomitance and unerringly perceives the smoke, he remembers the concomitance and feels certain that there is fire. But with regard to Ka@nâda's enumeration of types of inference such as "a cause is inferred from its effect, or an effect from the cause," etc., Pras'astapâda holds that these are not the only types of inference, but are only some examples for showing the general nature of inference. Inference merely shows a connection such that from this that can be inferred. He then divides inference into two classes, d@r@s@ta (from the experienced characteristics of one member of a class to another member of the same class), and sâmânyato d@r@s@ta. D@r@s@ta (perceived resemblance) is that where the previously known case and the inferred case is exactly of the same class. Thus as an example of it we can point out that by perceiving that only a cow has a hanging mass of flesh on its neck (sâsnâ), I can whenever I see the same hanging
350
mass of flesh at the neck of an animal infer that it is a cow. But when on the strength of a common quality the inference is extended to a different class of objects, it is called sâmânyato d@r@s@ta. Thus on perceiving that the work of the peasants is rewarded with a good harvest I may infer that the work of the priests, namely the performance of sacrifices, will also be rewarded with the objects for which they are performed (i.e. the attainment of heaven). When the conclusion, to which one has arrived (svanis'citârtha) is expressed in five premisses for convincing others who are either in doubt, or in error or are simply ignorant, then the inference is called parârthânumâna. We know that the distinction of svârthânumâna (inference for oneself) and parârthânumâna (inference for others) was made by the Jains and Buddhists. Pras'astapâda does not make a sharp distinction of two classes of inference, but he seems to mean that what one infers, it can be conveyed to others by means of five premisses in which case it is called parârthânumâna. But this need not be considered as an entirely new innovation of Pras'astapâda, for in IX. 2, Ka@nâda himself definitely alludes to this distinction (asyeda@m kâryyakâra@nasambandhas'câvayavâdbhavati). The five premisses which are called in Nyâya pratijñâ, hetu d@r@s@tânta, upanaya, and nigamana are called in Vais'e@sika pratijñâ, apades'a, nidars'ana, anusandhâna, and pratyâmnâya. Ka@nâda however does not mention the name of any of these premisses excepting the second "apades'a." Pratijñâ is of course the same as we have in Nyâya, and the term nidars'ana is very similar to Nyâya d@r@s@tânta, but the last two are entirely different. Nidars'ana may be of two kinds, (1) agreement in presence (e.g. that which has motion is a substance as is seen in the case of an arrow), (2) agreement in absence (e.g. what is not a substance has no motion as is seen in the case of the universal being [Footnote ref l]). He also points out cases of the fallacy of the example