Verse 1437

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

जिज्ञासितविशेषे हि वर्त्तनात्पक्षधर्मता ।
सपक्षस्तत्समानत्वाद्विपक्षस्तदभावतः ॥ १४३७ ॥

jijñāsitaviśeṣe hi varttanātpakṣadharmatā |
sapakṣastatsamānatvādvipakṣastadabhāvataḥ || 1437 ||

The character of residing in the minor term (subject) follows its presence in the subject whose character is meant to be ascertained; and the ‘sapakṣa’ is that which is similar to that subject; and the ‘vipakṣa’ is that where the said character is absent.—(1437)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The question arises still—“The object whose particular character one wishes to ascertain may be the subject under consideration; even so how can the said distinction be made in reference to that subject under consideration?”

The answer is provided in the following—[see verse 1438 above]

This is easily understood.—(1437)

The ‘Upanaya’, ‘Reaffirmation’ (as one of the five Members of the Syllogism) has been defined as that which, on the strength of the Corroborative Instance, reasserts the Subject as being so, or as being not so’—(Nyāya-sūtra 1. l. 38).—‘This Re-affirmation is not the means of proving the conclusion, as it only serves to make clear the sense of the Probans adduced, being, as it is, like a second affirmation of the Probans’—such is the authoritative statement of Diṅnāga in regard to this Re-affirmation.—But Bhāvivikta and others have argued as follows, in order to show that (without this Reaffirmation) the function of the Probans itself would remain unfulfilled:—“The fact of the Probans subsisting in the thing where the Probandum is known to be present is not made clear by the statement of the Probans, which comes just-after the statement of the Proposition; because the former only mentions the Reason—‘Sound is non-eternal, because it is a product’;—and whether this character of ‘being a product’ subsists, or does not subsist, in Sound, this is learnt only from the Reaffirmation.—Or the Reaffirmation may be regarded as serving the purpose of providing Re-presentment; when the Probans is stated at firsts it points out the presence of the Probans—e.g. ‘being a product’—in a general, unqualified, form;—then the Corroborative Instance is cited, where it is shown that the said Probans is invariably concomitant with the Probandum;—so that when, after these, the Reaffirmation is stated, it brings about the Representment of the Probans with the qualification that it is invariably concomitant with the Probandum,—‘Bo is Sound a product’, Thus inasmuch as it indicates a particular feature, it is not a mere repetition”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 1438-1439 next]