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 41 (of the Paksata-prakarana on Tattvacintama-nididhiti)
TEXT-41: phalanupahitasiddhicchavi rahavisistasiddhyabhavapeksaya badhabhavasya laghutve 'pi siddhasadhanasthale1 paksavyavaharavirahena tadrsasiddhyabhavas yavasyakatve badhabhavo na nivisate gauravat. VARIANT: 1. TCD reads -sthala- for sthale. TRANSLATION: Although an absence of a rejective evidence (badha) in comparison to an absence of cognition of probandum qualified by the absence of a desire of cognition of probandum which is not associated with a result is simpler, still in the case where the probandum is already known, there is no usage of the term subject, since that type of absence of the cognition of probandum is required, the absence of rejective evidence is not added (in the statement), because of cumbersomeness. NOTES: Raghunatha states that the expression "badhabhava" is simpler than the expression "phalanupahitasiddhicchavirahavisistasiddhyabhava", but the absence of a rejective evidence (badhabhava) is not necessary to arise an inferential cognition.
The siddhasadhana means to establish an already established thing. Here, the established thing is a probandum (sadhya), therefore, I translate siddhasadhana as "the probandum is already known". Raghunatha discusses about siddhasadhana in text-54. Cf. Notes of text-54.