The Navya-Nyaya theory of Paksata (Study)
by Kazuhiko Yamamoto | 1991 | 35,898 words
This essay studies the Navya-Nyaya theory of Paksata within Indian logic by exploring the Paksataprakarana on the Tattvacintamani of Gangesa Upadhyaya and the Didhiti of Raghunata Siromani. The term “paksa� originally meant a subject or proposition but evolved to signify a key logical term, representing the subject of an inference or the locus of i...
Text 37 (of the Paksata-prakarana on Tattvacintama-nididhiti)
TEXT-37: na canumitsavirahasya pratyekam visesanatve gauravam, sabdasiddhau satyam asabdam janam jayatam iticchayam anumiter utpadat, siddhav anumitivisayecchavirahasya 2 pratyaksasamagrisattve ca tadrsecchayam anumity 3-anutpadat. 4 sadhakamane 'numititvadiprakarakecchavi rahasya prthag eva visesanatayas tvayapi vacyatvat. VARIANTS: 1. Gadadhari and Tattvacintamani-didhiti-prakasa read pratyeka- for pratyekam. 2. Gadadhari reads -visayaka- for visaya-. Paksata-prakarana reads -visesaya- for visaya. 3. Paksata-prakarana omits anumity-. Tattvacintamani-didhiti-prakasa reads anumiter for anumity-. absence of a 4. Tattvacintamani-didhiti-prakasa reads -anutpadena for -anutpadat. TRANSLATION: One cannot argue that if an desire to infer is made a qualifier to each one, then it will lead to cumbersomeness, because when there is a verbal cognition if there arises a desire "let there be a non-verbal knowledge", the inferential cognition arises and so you too should say that
with reference to the cognition of probandum, the absence of a desire in which the inferential cognition is the object is the qualifier and in the presence of factors for perception when there is that (=let there be a non-verbal cognition) desire, since the inferential cognition does not arise, with reference to the supportive evidence, the absence of desire in which the state of being an inferential cognition is the qualifier etc. is the qualifier, separately. NOTES: Opponent wants to that the qualifier "absence of desire" (anumitsaviraha) to the cognition of probandum (siddhi) and the supportive evidence (sadhakamana) is not necessary, inferential cognition arises without that qualifier. because an And because "the absence of a desire in which the inferential cognition is the object" the object" (anumitivisayecchaviraha) is the qualifier of the cognition of probandum the cognition of probandum (siddhi), and "the absence of desire in which the state of being an inferential cognition" (anumititvadiprakarakecchaviraha) is the qualifier of the supportive evidence (sadhakamana).