UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Navya-Nyāya theory of inference Mullatti, Laxman Channappa 1972

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A1 M84.pdf [ 11.53MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0103907.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0103907-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0103907-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0103907-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0103907-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0103907-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0103907-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0103907-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0103907.ris

Full Text

THE NAVYA-NYAYA THEORY OF INFERENCE by LAXMAN CHANNAPPA MULLATTI B.A., Karnatak University, Dharwar (India), 1954 M.A., Karnatak University, Dharwar (India), 1957 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of PHILOSOPHY We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Apr i l , 1972 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . L. C. M u l l a t t i Department o f Philosophy. The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date A p r i l 4. 1972 i ABSTRACT This d i s s e r t a t i o n i s an attempt to represent the Navya-nyaya (Nn) theory of inference i n terms of a contemporary conceptual framework. There e x i s t s i m i l a r studies by able modern scholars, but these are e i t h e r piecemeal, or, when comprehensive, r e l y mainly on t r a d i t i o n a l (western) l o g i c . The present attempt i s both r e l a t i v e l y more comprehensive, and employs notions from contemporary l o g i c . Since the Nn theory of inference i s couched i n terms of cognitions rather than sentences, an e f f o r t i s made to c l a r i f y the notion of cog-nition. I t i s argued that a cognition i s an abstract and o n t o l o g i c a l l y independent e n t i t y much i n the fashion of the Fregean p r o p o s i t i o n , and that p r i m a r i l y i t , as d i s t i n c t from i t s l i n g u i s t i c v e h i c l e , i s the bearer of truth-values. The semantic model set up by the Navya-naiyayikas (NNs) f o r a cognition i s considered, and i t s inadequacy brought out with r e f e r -ence not only to u n i v e r s a l cognitions, but also to c e r t a i n modes of expression generally accepted as synonymous. These modes of expression also serve, i n part, to b r i n g out the inadequacy of the l i n g u i s t i c c r i t e r i a that the NNs i m p l i c i t l y use f o r i n d i v i d u a t i n g cognitions. A f u r t h e r defect of the Nn semantic model i s that i t requires that n-adic predicates be reducible to monadic ones, a requirement that can hardly be f u l f i l l e d . P a r t l y i n the course of t h e i r search f o r a p r i n c i p l e of i n d i v i d u a t i n g cognitions, the NNs b r i n g i n three notions, namely, expect-ancy, competency, and proximity. Of these, expectancy i s viewed as a i i s y n t a c t i c property, and compared to a c e r t a i n communication t h e o r e t i c model f o r l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e employing a f i n i t e state Markov process. Competency i s sought to be understood with reference to Ryle's theory of category mistake, and, i n the process, the d i f f i c u l t i e s of the th e s i s that unexampled (non-referring) terms lack competency are pointed out. Proximity i s regarded p r i m a r i l y as an attempt at introducing some kind of word-order, e s p e c i a l l y i n t o the shorter sentences of Sanskrit (which, s t r i c t l y speaking, i . e . , from a grammatical standpoint, have no r i g i d o r der). Next, the Nn d e f i n i t i o n of i n f e r e n c e — t h a t inference i s the instrumental cause of the c o n c l u s i o n — i s examined, and the usual way of understanding i t i n a psychological sense i s shown to be u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . Inference i s viewed as a set of cognitions such that the conclusion i s a l o g i c a l consequence of the set of the remaining cognitions. A case i s made f o r understanding the term 'cause' i n the above d e f i n i t i o n i n a l o g i c a l sense to mean an inference-form. I t i s shown that, on such an understanding, inference f o r oneself and inference f o r others collapse i n t o one, and that both have exactly the same number of cognitions, namely, four, as elements. The r e s u l t i n g discrepancy between the number of sentences and the number of cognitions i n inference i s accounted f o r by means of n o n - l o g i c a l considerations. The nature of each of the four elements i s explained with p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on the second element, pervasion. The representations by Sta a l and Berg of the Nn d e f i n i t i o n of pervasion are considered and rejected, and a much simpler representa-t i o n proposed. I t i s pointed out that the Nn d i s t i n c t i o n between p o s i t i v e i i i and contrapositive pervasions involves a recognition, with c e r t a i n m reservations, of the (complete) law of contraposition. The t h i r d element of inference, 'consideration', i s shown to be superfluous, and Schayer's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i t erroneous. I t i s argued that the e l l i p t i -c a l expressions used to express the t h i r d and the fourth elements are i n t e l l i g i b l e only i n r e l a t i o n to the early stages of Nyaya when the concept of pervasion as a member of inference had not yet evolved, and that they cease to be i n t e l l i g i b l e i n r e l a t i o n to the l a t e r stages when pervasion i s included as an element. This f a c t i s used to point out the u n t e n a b i l i t y of the suggestion that the Nn s y l l o g i s m i s r e a l l y the A r i s t o t e l i a n argument from example. The paradoxes of r e l a t i v i s i n g pervasion to the inference contain-ing i t are brought out, and the theory of confirmation i m p l i c i t i n the Nn account of pervasion i s f u l l y reconstructed with s p e c i a l reference to Hempel and Goodman. The Nn account of another ( n o n - s y l l o g i s t i c ) form of inference i s considered, and Staal's representation of i t shown to be wrong. F i n a l l y , i t i s observed that the NNs do not c a l l i n question the formal v a l i d i t y of an inference, and that, f o r them, a f a l l a c y i s n e c e s s a r i l y 'material'. I t i s also maintained that the customary view that the Nn notion of accident i s a means of converting an unsound i n -ference i n t o a sound one i s mistaken, and that the true function of an accident i s to show up the f a l s i t y of a pervasion. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CONVENTIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS v i i CHAPTER 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1 COGNITION AND SENTENCE (I) 26 II COGNITION AND SENTENCE (II) 55 I I I WHAT IS INFERENCE? 98 IV THE ELEMENTS OF INFERENCE 126 V A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE NAVYA-NYAYA THEORY OF CONFIRMATION 172 VI FORMS AND FALLACIES OF INFERENCE 211 CHRONOLOGICAL CHART OF AUTHORS 233 BIBLIOGRAPHY 236 V LIST OF TABLES TABLE P a S e 1 Confirmatory Status of Observation Reports 195 v i ACKNOWLEDGMENT I s i n c e r e l y acknowledge my indebtedness to the members of my t h e s i s committee f o r the help they gave me i n completing my t h e s i s -p r o j e c t . Dr. Howard Jackson f i r s t p rovided me w i t h the i n c e n t i v e f o r the p r o j e c t , and saw i t through many ups and downs. I have g r e a t l y b e n e f i t e d a l l along by h i s comments. Dr. Richard Robinson p a t i e n t l y put up w i t h my frequent, and not always enjoyable, d i s c u s s i o n s . I have taken many l i b e r t i e s w i t h him, and he was gracious enough not to mind them. I t was a comfort to me j u s t to know that Dr. Donald Brown was always there ready to h e l p . To him, I owe more than I can express: he sus t a i n e d my s t r e n g t h at a most c r u c i a l time when i t was about to f a i l me. These three gentlemen have been extremely h e l p f u l i n non-academic matters as w e l l , and I deeply a p p r e c i a t e t h e i r kindness. Dr. A. N. A k l u j k a r (of the A s i a n Studies Department) c o n t r i b u t e d i n no s m a l l measure to the shaping of t h i s t h e s i s . He gave me l i b e r a l l y of h i s time and energy, so that I cou l d see my problems i n a c l e a r e r p e r s p e c t i v e . I have h e a v i l y r e l i e d on him, not only f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g the S a n s k r i t t e x t s , but a l s o f o r i n f o r m a t i o n concerning numerous matters of S a n s k r i t t r a d i t i o n . I have not been able to agree w i t h him at times, and my disagreements are i n d i c a t e d at appr o p r i a t e p l a c e s . v i i CONVENTIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS The following conventions and devices are adopted in this thesis: A. Translation I try to translate a l l Sanskrit words and passages as literally as possible. But frequently, considerations of preserving the original sense and/or English usage make i t necessary to supply words which are not li t e r a l translations of anything in the original. Words thus supplied are enclosed either in square brackets or in round ones. Those in square brackets are necessary for understanding the sense of the given passage and have no counter-parts in the original. Those in round brackets are explanatory in character, whether or not there is anything in the original corres-ponding to them; often, they also mitigate the damage done to English usage by a li t e r a l translation. I translate a l l Sanskrit passages except those the paraphrases or free renderings of which appear in the body of the thesis. In the latter cases, usually the Sanskrit passages alone are cited in footnotes. B. Italics As is customary, I set a l l Sanskrit expressions and passages (except proper names and their derivatives) in italics. I also use italics (1) for purposes of emphasis; and (2) for indicat-ing in certain cases (e.g., qualifier, qualificand, pervader, v i i i pervadend, probans, probandum, etc.) that I am t a l k i n g , not of the i t a l i c i s e d expression, but of the e n t i t y to which i t r e f e r s . C. Quotes Quotes are used (1) to form names of expressions ( i . e . , to mention them) whether i n E n g l i s h or i n Sanskrit; (2) to i n d i c a t e that a c e r t a i n sentence or a passage (but not a word or a phrase) enclosed i n quotes i s a t r a n s l a t i o n of a Sanskrit sentence or a passage; (3) to i n d i c a t e that the enclosed expression i s used i n a rather unusual way; and (4) to show that a c e r t a i n sentence or passage i n E n g l i s h i s taken from a fo r e i g n source. Generally, double quotes are used for sentences and passages, while s i n g l e quotes are used f o r other expressions (e.g., words). D. V e r t i c a l strokes When a sentence i n Sanskrit or E n g l i s h i s bounded by v e r t i c a l strokes, i t means that I am t a l k i n g about the cognition expressed by that sentence, and not about that sentence i t s e l f . When the expression 'conclusion' (or ' i n f e r e n t i a l con-clusion') i s bounded by v e r t i c a l strokes ( i . e . , '|conclusion|'), i t serves as a t r a n s l a t i o n of 'anumiti'. The same expression without the strokes t r a n s l a t e s 'nigamana'. Anumiti i s a cognition; but nigamana i s a sentence. E. Transfer of l o g i c a l terminology from sentences to cognitions Many terms which, according to contemporary l o g i c a l usage are ap p l i c a b l e to sentences, I use also i n t a l k i n g about cognitions so as to keep as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e to the Nn mode of thinking. ix Examples are: 'atomic', 'universal', 'truth-functional 1, 'positive', 'contrapositive*, etc. F. References References except in the case of abbreviations, are by name of the author, year of publication and page number. When there is more than one publication by the same author in a single year, they are numbered 'a', 'b', 'c', etc. and the year of publication is followed by one of these letters. The details about the works referred to are found in the Bibliography. In the case of abbreviations, the mode of reference is differ-ent, and is indicated in G below. G. Abbreviations 1. Titles of Books a) Athalye = Athalye and Bodas 1930. References are to page numbers. b) BP = Bhd3a-pcan.00h.eda by Visvanatha Nyayapahcanana. Included in Jere 1933 and in Madhavananda 1954.* c) NB - Nyaya-bodhini- by Govardhana. Included in Athalye and Bodas 1930.* d) NK = Nyaya-kosa. See Jhalkikar 1928. References are by word-entries. e) NBh = Nyaya-bhasya by Vatsyayana. See (f) below. *References are by either sections or passages commenting on sections. X f) NS = Nyaya-sutra by Gautama. Included in Visvanatha's Vrtti along with Vatsyayana1s Nyaya-bhasya. Anandasrama edition 1922.* g) SM = Siddhanta-muktavalZ by Visvanatha Nyayapancanana. Included in Jere 1933 along with BP.* h) TC = Tattva-ointamccni by Gangesa. The f i r s t two sections (Anumiti-nirupana and Vyapti-vada) of part two (Anumana-khanda) are included in Goekoop 1967. References to these sections are by parts and lines. References to other portions of TC are indicated at appropriate places. i ) TD = Tarka-dipika, by Annambhatta. Included in Athalye and Bodas 1930.* j) TS = Tarka-samgraha by Annambhatta. Included in Athalye and Bodas 1930.* 2. Other Expressions a) 10 = Inference for others (pararthanumana). b) IS = Inference for oneself (svarthanurnana). c) NN = Navya-naiyayika. d) Nn = Navya-nyaya. ^References are by either sections or passages commenting on sections. CHAPTER 0 INTRODUCTION $ 0.1 During i t s long i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o r y extending over a period of two m i l l e n i a , India has produced and nourished s e v e r a l schools of philosophy. These schools are u s u a l l y divided i n t o two broad groups, the heterodox (nastika) and the orthodox (astika),^ on the b a s i s of whether they accept the authority of the Vedas, the b a s i c s c r i p t u r e s of Brahmanism. The former comprises Jainism, Buddhism and materialism (Carvaka or Lokayata dars'ana). The l a t t e r consists of s i x schools {sad-dartana), namely, Nyaya, V a i s e s i k a , Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa (or Purva-mimamsa or Karma-mlmamsa) and Vedanta (or Uttara-mimamsa or • • • Brahma-mimamsa). Among these, i t i s the Nyaya school which i s devoted mostly to l o g i c , epistemology and methodology. R e f l e c t i o n on l o g i c a l subjects f i r s t began i n t h i s school, though other schools also soon developed t h e i r own views as a r e s u l t of an exchange of ideas between the d i f f e r e n t schools. But i n course of time, the p r i n c i p a l l o g i c a l views (as also the s t y l e and terminology) of the Nyaya school won over those of the r e s t and became the stock i n trade of a l l Indian schools of philosophy. This i s e s p e c i a l l y true of the views that were developed ^ I t i s to be noted that i n t h i s context the words rast%kay and ynastikd* have nothing to do with b e l i e f i n the existence of God (Chatterjee and Datta 1950:5). 2 i n the last phase of the Nyaya school, extending approximately from the 13th to the 18th century. This phase of the Nyaya school is roughly called the Navya-nyaya (Nn) (new or modern Nyaya) ($ 0.13) ; a follower of Navya-nyaya is called a Navya-naiyayika (NN). A Naiyayika i s a follower of the Nyaya school i n general whether new or old. $0.2 The present thesis i s an attempt to understand mainly the Navya-nyaya theory of inference i n terms of current western concepts. There have been, of course, attempts before to set Indian logic, including Navya-nyaya logic, in the contemporary conceptual framework, and by very able authors, such as Athalye (1930), Suali (1913), Vidyabhusana (1921), Keith (1921), Sen (1924), Randle (1930) and Stcherbatsky (1962a). Des-pite their deep learning and wide scholarship both in Sanskrit and western philosophy, these authors inevitably suffer from a drawback. They knew only the traditional Aristotelian logic for the simple reason that the modern researches, which have revolutionised logic after nearly two thousand years of stagnation, were yet in the process of crystalisa-tion and had not had their impact on Indologists. The importance of approaching Indian logic from the standpoint of more recent developments in logic was f i r s t stressed especially by Schayer (1933a). The f i r s t Suali bases his account of the Nyaya system, as I do, on the syncretic (Nyaya-Vaisesika) works. He also gives a long h i s t o r i c a l introduction. See Randle 1930:380. Besides the works of these authors, there are also numerous histories of Indian philosophy like those of Radhakrishnan (1926, 1927) and Hirijanna (1932), and specialised treatises like those of Chatterjee (1950) and Datta (1960). 3 significant step in this direction was taken by Ingalls. Ingalls' pioneering work (1951), by pointing out specific problems where tech-niques of modern mathematical logic need to be applied, has done a great service to the study of Indian logic. It created a new interest in the area, and i t is perhaps because of Ingalls more than any other single person that Indian logic has in recent times received the attention of such competent contemporary logicians as Bochenski (1961), Staal (and his students McDermott (1969) and Goekoop (1967)) and Jan Berg (1963, 1970). Bochenski was the f i r s t modern historian of logic to include an independent chapter on Indian logic. Since 1958, Staal has produced a series of able articles which have done much to c l a r i f y the notions of Indian logic. In addition to the work of these logicians, the work of 3 Matilal has been very helpful i n elucidating the intricate concepts of Navya-nyaya logic. Another significant contributor to the study of 3 Indian logic i s Potter. Both Potter and Matilal were students of Ingalls, 4 and their work is naturally highly influenced by him. In spite of the good work done by these authors, however, there is s t i l l no treatment of the Navya-nyaya theory of inference as a whole See Bibliography. Potter has also recently launched on an ambitious project of compiling an exhaustive encyclopaedia of Indian philosophies running over several volumes. The bulky f i r s t volume is already out and i s completely devoted to bibliography. It i s the f i r s t systematic attempt at compiling a comprehensive bibliography of a l l available philosophi-cal literature bearing on every school of Indian philosophy. It f i l l s an acutely f e l t need. 4 that can be s a i d to be even modestly comprehensive. S t a a l , Goekoop and Berg deal with s e l e c t topics i n that theory, and t h e i r work therefore, tends by i t s very nature to be piecemeal. My thesis hopes to remedy t h i s s i t u a t i o n to some extent. There are, of course, d i f f e r e n t ways i n which a purpose l i k e mine can be achieved. One may, f o r instance, give an h i s t o r i c a l account of the subject e i t h e r by taking each NN and examining h i s views on inference, or by taking each topi c i n the Navya-nyaya theory of inference and examining the views on i t of d i f f e r e n t NNs. Or, one may concentrate mainly on some s p e c i f i c text or texts and t r y to make sense of the account of inference given there i n terms of the contemporary idiom. I have opted f o r the l a t t e r course. What are the texts I have chosen and why I have chosen them are questions to which I provide answers below ($ 0.16). $ 0.3 Accordingly, I begin, i n the remainder of t h i s Chapter, by presenting an h i s t o r i c a l and metaphysical perspective to the Navya-nyaya theory of inference. In Chapters I and I I , a f t e r considering the ba s i c concept of cogn i t i o n , I turn to a consideration of the nature of a sentence, which according to the NNs i s the v e h i c l e of a cognition. In Chapter I I , I also t r y to point out why the NNs, though p r i m a r i l y con-cerned i n t h e i r l o g i c with cognitions rather than with sentences, yet devote so much at t e n t i o n to a consideration of the nature of a sentence. I then proceed i n subsequent Chapters to a d i r e c t treatment of inference. Chapter I I I deals with the nature of inference and Chapter IV examines 5 the nature of the d i f f e r e n t elements of inference. In Chapter V, I try to reconstruct the Nn theory of confirmation. The f i r s t part of Chapter VI i s devoted to an account of the d i f f e r e n t forms of inference recognised by the NNs; the second part discusses c e r t a i n aspects of the Nn theory of f a l l a c i e s . $0.4 Formal l o g i c i n India o f f i c i a l l y begins with the appearance of the Nyaya-sUtra (NS)^ of Gautama (not to be confused with Gautama, the Buddha) at about 200 A.D. For, i t i s i n the NS that the subject of inference, i n c l u d i n g the five-membered syll o g i s m , i s f o r the f i r s t time discussed. True, of the sixteen topics (padartha)^ that the NS deals with, only two d i r e c t l y bear on inference,^ and the r e s t are a l l d i a l e c t i -g c a l i n character. Even those two topics are disposed of summarily compared to the r e s t . Not only i n terms of space, but also i n terms of q u a l i t y , the d i s c u s s i o n of inference leaves much to be desired. There i s , 9 f o r instance, no mention of pervasion (vyapti) as a component i n a ^The NS i s so c a l l e d because of i t s a p h o r i s t i c form. 'Sutra 1 means an aphorism. ^The word 'padartha' i n t h i s context does not mean a category as i t does i n l a t e r Nyaya-Vaisesika l i t e r a t u r e , though i t i s sometimes tr a n s l a t e d as such (e.g., Vidyabhusana 1921:54; cp Athalye:73). ^These are: means of knowledge (pramana) and member (avayava). g The NS i s mainly devoted to a d i s c u s s i o n of the s i x t e e n t o p i c s , and t r e a t s metaphysical questions only i n c i d e n t a l l y . 9 A precise explanation of pervasion w i l l be given below ($$ 4,3-19). I t i s enough now to note that i t i s something l i k e a u n i v e r s a l sentence. 6 syllogism, and the syllogism remains really an argument from analogy. Nevertheless, a beginning is made i n thinking abstractly about argu-ments, a beginning which eventually expands to greater dimensions especially at the hands of the NNs. Though primarily a text for the Nyaya school, the NS had influence far beyond that school: i t provided the starting point for subsequent logical thought in other schools as well. It i s , therefore, rightly regarded as 'the organon of Indian logic' (Bochenski 1961:417, 425). $ 0.5 Despite i t s great importance, the NS is not a totally original work. A mass of doctrine recognisably continuous with that embodied i n i t was already in existence prior to i t ; Gautama only sharpened and redacted i t . When exactly this mass of doctrine i t s e l f took shape i s not clear, but i t i s generally believed that i t could not have been earlier than the Christian era (Randle 1930:9-17; cf Bochenski 1961:417). At any rate, i t i n turn had i t s origin i n the methodology of discussion (Anviksiki) which i t s e l f stemmed from the Upanisadic speculations about the soul and evolved over a long period of time beginning from about 650 B.C. to about 100 B.C. (Vidyabhusana 1921:4-8; cf Keith 1921:11-13). There i s ample evidence of this in the predominantly d i a l e c t i c a l nature of the NS i t s e l f . The period during which the methodology of discussion evolved and flourished i s a 'pre-logical' period and works l i k e Milinda-panha and Kathavatthu (both ca 100 B.C.), which belong to this period, exhibit l i t t l e trace of formal l o g i c . ^ It i s then the NS that represents But compare Bochenski 1961:422-23. 7 the f i r s t phase in the development of Indian logic. $0.6 The second phase spans across a long period of about a millenium from the second century A.D. to the twelfth. This phase is marked by great interaction between especially the Naiyayikas and the Buddhists, though the Jains also made their contributions. The f i r s t two eminent Naiyayikas of this period are Vatsyayana (4th century A.D.) whose Nyaya-bhasya is the earliest extant commentary on the NS; and Uddyotakara (7th century A.D.) whose Nyaya-varttika is regarded as 'one of the world's great treatises on logic' (Randle 1930:35). Vatsyayana's fame rests mainly on the fact that his commentary sets forth the traditional interpretations, current in his time, of the aphorisms of Gautama. His logical achievements are meagre; on matters of logic he makes no advance on Gautama whom he closely follows. Inference for him i s s t i l l mainly an argument from analogy. Though there i s some evidence that he vaguely f e l t the need for pervasion, he does not yet f u l l y appreciate i t s importance. Nevertheless, Vatsyayana deserves a place in the history of Indian logic not only as an able exponent of Gautama's ideas, but also as one who becomes the main target of attacks of the most powerful Buddhist logicians. He himself c r i t i c i s e s the logical theories of earlier Buddhist thinkers like Nagarjuna (ca 200 A.D.) and some followers of the Yogacara school. But whatever interaction took place between the lo g i c a l ideas of the Naiyayaikas and the Buddhists prior to Vatsyayana i s rela-tively of a rudimentary kind and had not much influence in shaping the subsequent development of logic. It is the interaction that took place following Vatsyayana that is important. $0.7 A f t e r Vatsyayana, and before the emergence of Uddyotakara i n the 7th century, there i s an i n t e r v a l of about three centuries during which there does not seem to have been much l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y i n the Nylya school. However, t h i s i n t e r v a l of r e l a t i v e i n a c t i v i t y w i t h i n the Nylya school, c u r i o u s l y enough, overlaps with what i s regarded as the golden age of Buddhist l o g i c . During the period from 5th to 7th century A.D., Buddhism produced i t s greatest l o g i c i a n s , Vasubandhu (5th century A.D.), h i s i l l u s t r i o u s d i s c i p l e Dignaga ( l a t e 5th century A.D.), and Dharmakirti (7th century A.D.), a l l belonging to the Yoglcara school (or vijnanavada, s u b j e c t i v e i d e a l i s m ) . The vigorous l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y w i t h i n the Buddhist camp, c a r r i e d on during t h i s period mainly against the background of Gautama's l o g i c as int e r p r e t e d by Vatsyayana, contributed s u b s t a n t i a l l y to the f i n a l shape of Indian l o g i c . $ 0 . 8 Vasubandhu was an eminent l o g i c i a n but somehow h i s i n f l u e n c e on subsequent l o g i c a l thought has not been as great as i t might have been. He c r i t i c i s e s c e r t a i n l o g i c a l views of Vatsyayana, but i t i s Dignaga who di r e c t s a concerted attack on the l o g i c of Vatsyayana. Though Buddhist l o g i c may be s a i d to begin with Vasubandhu, i t i s Dignaga who sets i t on a r e l a t i v e l y systematic and s o l i d foundation. He i s undoubtedly one of the greatest l o g i c i a n s of India, and i s sometimes regarded ' as the father of medieval l o g i c i n India' (Vidyabhusana 1921:270; H a t t o r i 1968:1). He s p e c i a l i s e d i n l o g i c under Vasubandhu and i s s a i d to have become an ' o r i g i n a l scholar' (svatantra panditd). His l o g i c a l works are: Alambana-pccrlksa^ Trikala-parZkscij Hetuoakrasajnarthana (Eetuaakrcuicmaru)3 9 Nyayamukha (Nyaya-pvavesa)3 and Pramana-samucahaya with his own commentary (Vvtti). The last i s his magnum opus and incorporates the main ideas of the rest. The Sanskrit original of the book is lost, but two Tibetan translations are available. Dignaga met no opponent of equal stature among the Naiyayika logicians of his time. Prasastapada (early 6th century A.D.), a VaiSesika logician of repute, who one would think should have come to the defense of his sister-system against Dignaga, actually f a l l s under Dignaga's influence, and his logic developed i n his Padartha-dTiarma-samgraha, an independent commentary on the Vaisesika system, closely resembles that of Dignaga. $0.9 The challenge to Dignaga's logical theory came about a century and a half later i n the person of the Naiyayika logician Uddyotakara who was not only a gifted logician but also a gifted fighter. In the very opening lines of his Nyaya-varttika, a subcommentary on the NS, he declares i t to be his mission to dispel the misunderstanding (of Gautama's doctrines) spread by 'bad logicians' (kutarkikas), and to restore the Nyaya tradition to i t s pristine glory. As a matter of fact, he failed i n this latter objective since i n the coming centuries "logic f e l l into the hands of eclectic logicians and the pure Naiyayika tradition may perhaps be said to end with Uddyotakara" (Randle 1930:36). But his re-joinders to Buddhists were often effective and were adopted by subsequent Naiyayikas. Uddyotakara was answered by Dharmakirti, who perhaps was his junior contemporary. Dharmakirti was another powerful Buddhist logician 10 who wrote seven works on l o g i c . Stcherbatsky (1962a:37) t e l l s us that these have become the fundamental works f o r the study of l o g i c by Buddhists i n T i b e t , and, though designed by t h e i r author as a commentary on Dignaga's work, have replaced the l a t t e r . The p r i n c i p a l among them i s the voluminous Pramana-varttika. Pvamana-vinitcaya and Nyaya-bindhu t r e a t e s s e n t i a l l y the same topics but more b r i e f l y . Dharmakirti i s ably commented upon by Dharmottara (750-810 A.D.). $ 0.10 A f t e r Dharmakirti, Buddhist l o g i c v i r t u a l l y came to an end i n India; i t received no new additions of importance at the hands of subsequent Buddhist l o g i c i a n s , though t h e i r lineage continued u n t i l about the twelfth century. But i t found a new home, T i b e t , where i t f l o u r i s h e d f o r a long time. Most works of Dignaga and Dharmakirti and t h e i r p r i n c i p a l commentaries were tr a n s l a t e d i n t o Tibetan and provided the stimulus f o r a vast amount of indigenous l i t e r a t u r e . Almost every monastery i n Tibet became a centre f o r studying Buddhist l o g i c which eventually spread beyond Tibet as f a r as, and to the whole of, Mongolia. Dignaga's l o g i c was also introduced i n t o China by Hsiian-tsang who studied i t during h i s extensive t r a v e l s (630-645 A.D.) i n India. He c a r r i e d back two l o g i c a l works, one of which was Dignaga's Nyaya-pravesa, and trans-l a t e d them i n t o Chinese. These t r a n s l a t i o n s i n s p i r e d a considerable amount of indigenous l i t e r a t u r e . From China Buddhist l o g i c was taken to Japan by a Japanese monk c a l l e d Dohshoh, who studied i t under Hslian-tsang himself. $0.11 Though Buddhism migrated from the land of i t s birth, i t l e f t a permanent mark on Indian logic. It constrained the Naiyayikas to recognise at least those weaknesses in their logical theories which did not v i t a l l y touch upon their metaphysics, and to adopt the solutions which the Buddhists suggested and which they considered sound. This i s true mainly of the third phase of Indian logic but even later Naiylyikas of this second phase show a more l i b e r a l and accommodative s p i r i t as i s evidenced, for instance, by the next Naiyayika of repute, Vacaspati Misra (950 A.D.). This thinker, though a strong c r i t i c of Buddhist logic, i s not a purist l i k e Uddyotakara but a versatile eclectic. He is credited with introducing innovations i n Nyaya logic and rejuvenating the Nyaya school as a whole, the tradition of which was i n i t s prime at the time of Uddyotakara. The rejuvenation i s done in an eclectic fashion with the help of ideas gleaned from Prasastapada (who is himself highly i n -fluenced by Dignaga) and logicians of Buddhist and Mimamsaka schools (Randle 1930:4). He wrote extensively and his works range over the Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa and Vedanta schools. Chief among his works are: 1. Nyaya-varttika-tatparya-t-ika, a gloss on Uddyotakara's Nyaya-varttika; 2. llyaya-kanika3 a gloss on Mandana Misra's Vidhi-viveka (a Mimamsaka work); 3. Samkhya-tattva-kaxamdi> a work on the Samkhya system; 4. TatU)a-vai.saradt3 which deals with the Yoga system; and 5. BhamatZj which i s a commentary on Sankara's Sax^ivaka-bhasya (Bruhrna-sutra-bhasya). 12 The f i r s t two works are almost entirely devoted to refutation of Buddhist theories. $0.12 Vacaspati Misra i s , of course, c r i t i c i s e d i n turn by Buddhists. For, though Buddhist logic after Darmakirti was not augmented i n any significant way, i t continued, as noted above ($0.10), u n t i l about the twelfth century to have adherents who mainly expounded the doctrines of their early masters.^ Vacaspati Misra i s defended by the next, and perhaps the last, great logician of this second phase of Indian logic, namely, Udayana (ca 1050 A.D.). Udayana directs his attack against Kalyanaraksita and Dharmottara, among other Buddhists. He was a p r o l i f i c writer and his works include: 1. Nyaya-varttika-talTparya-tZka-paj^suddh-i, a gloss on Vacaspati Misra's Nyaya-varttika-tatparya-tika; _ t _ _ 2. K-ivanavalit a commentary on Prasastapada's Bhasya; 3. Nyaya-kusumanjalZj 4. Atma-tattva-viveka or Bauddhadhikkaraj 5. Nyaya-parisista. Vacaspati Misra, though a renovator, yet derives the material for most of his doctrines from earlier writers. He contributes no ideas on logic that are totally new or original. It i s with Udayana that new conceptions begin to appear. Hence, Udayana i s said to form a bridge Among these are Devendrabuddhi (ca 650 A.D.), Jinendrabuddhi (ca 725 A.D.), Santaraksita (749 A.D.), Kamalaslla (ca 750 A.D.), Dharmottara (ca 775 A.D.), Kalyanaraksita (ca 829 A.D.), Jnanasrimitra (ca 1040 A.D.), Ratnakarasanti (ca 1040 A.D.), and Ratnaklrti (ca 1075 A.D.). 13 between the o l d l o g i c comprising the f i r s t two phases, and the new l o g i c (Navya-nyaya) comprising the t h i r d and the f i n a l phase. He deserves n o t i c e also regarding another aspect of the development of Indian l o g i c : Nyaya and Va i s e s i k a were from the time of Prasastapada at l e a s t sister-systems. Nyaya r e l i e d h e a v i l y for i t s metaphysics on Vai s e s i k a and Vais e s i k a depended mostly on Nyaya f o r i t s l o g i c . But t h e i r t r a d i t i o n and lineage of thinkers were d i s t i n c t . Udayana i s the f i r s t thinker on record i n whom the doctrines of the two schools begin _ 12 to merge. S i v a d i t y a ( l a t e 11th century A.D.) c a r r i e s t h i s s y n c r e t i c trend to i t s culmination, and i n h i s Sapta-padarthi presents the ideas of the two schools i n one u n i f i e d whole. In the f i n a l phase of Indian l o g i c , the amalgamation i s accepted as a matter of course, e i t h e r i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y , and the i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i t y of the two schools i s l a r g e l y l o s t . Udayana was preceded i n the tenth century by two thinkers whose names deserve mention here. They are the Naiyayika Jayanta Bhatta (ca 965 A.D.) whose Nyaya-mah'gazn, i s an independent commentary on the * — — NS3 and Sridhara (ca 991 A.D.) whose Nyaya-kandali i s a commentary on the Bhc.sya of Prasastapada. Both engaged i n polemics with Buddhists and c r i t i c i s e e s p e c i a l l y Dharmottara. See fn 0.18 below for the meaning of ' s y n c r e t i c ' . 14 $ 0 . 1 3 The t h i r d and t h e f i n a l phase o f I n d i a n l o g i c f o r m a l l y b e g i n s 13 w i t h t h e Tattva-cintamani (TC) o f Gangesa ( c a 1 3 t h c e n t u r y ) . The t r a n s i t i o n f r o m Udayana t o Gangesa was p r e s u m a b l y g r a d u a l and d u r i n g t h e i n t e r v e n i n g p e r i o d o f about 200 y e a r s , t h e r e m i g h t have been s e v e r a l w r i t e r s who h e l p e d t h i s t r a n s i t i o n . Of many o f t h e s e n o t much i s known; one o f t h e few of whom s o m e t h i n g i s known i s V a l l a b h a ( c a 1 1 t h c e n t u r y A.D.) about whose work, Nyaya-lilavati, a p r i m a r i l y V a i s e s i k a work, D.C. B h a t t a c a r y a (1958:56) o b s e r v e s : i t i s ' t h e o n l y p o s t - U d a y a n a work b e f o r e Gangesa t o r a n k among t h e i m m o r t a l c l a s s i c s o f N e o - l o g i c ' . T h e d e c i s i v e b r e a k w i t h t h e p a s t , however, comes w i t h Gangesa, who c a l l s h i m s e l f a 'new' N a i y a y i k a . ^ The TC i s t o t h e new Nyaya what t h e NS i s t o t h e o l d Nyaya. I t i s t h e f u n d a m e n t a l t e x t , and t h e o n l y i n d e p e n d e n t work, o f t h e new Nyaya. O t h e r Nn works comment on i t d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , o r a r e o t h e r w i s e d e r i v e d f r o m i t t o a g r e a t e x t e n t ( I n g a l l s 1 9 5 1 : 6 ) . I t r e p l a c e d i n The c h r o n o l o g y o f t h e a u t h o r s m e n t i o n e d h e r e and e l s e w h e r e i n t h i s t h e s i s i s , i n g e n e r a l , u n c e r t a i n , v a r y i n g a t t i m e s by more t h a n a c e n t u r y . The r e l a t i v e c h r o n o l o g y , however, i s f a i r l y c e r t a i n . I n d e c i d i n g on t h e d a t e s o f t h e s e a u t h o r s , I have c o n s u l t e d s e v e r a l w r i t e r s ( i n c l u d i n g V i d y a b h u s a n a ( 1 9 2 1 ) ; K e i t h ( 1 9 2 1 ) ; A t h a l y e ; I n g a l l s ( 1 9 5 1 ) ; D.C. B h a t t a c a r y a ( 1 9 5 8 ) ; B o c h e n s k i ( 1 9 6 1 ) ; F r a u w a l l n e r ( 1 9 6 1 ) ; H a t t o r i ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; M a t i l a l (1968a) and P o t t e r ( 1 9 7 0 ) ) ; b u t I have n o t f o l l o w e d any one o f them u n i f o r m l y , though I f o u n d P o t t e r (1970) p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l . 14 B h a t t a c a r y a (1958:40, 41) t h i n k s t h a t N avya-nyaya a c t u a l l y b e g i n s w i t h Udayana whom he a l s o p l a c e s between 1050 and 1100 A.D. ^ T h e t e r m ' N a v y a - n a i y a y i k a ' i s ambiguous. U s u a l l y i t i s a p p l i e d t o a l l N a i y a y i k a s b e g i n n i n g w i t h , and i n c l u d i n g , Gangesa. I adopt t h i s u sage o f t h e term. B u t , i t i s a l s o a p p l i e d sometimes t o p r e - G a f i g e s a t h i n k e r s l i k e Udayana and sometimes o n l y t o Raghunatha and h i s f o l l o w e r s . See I n g a l l s 1951:5; K e i t h 1921:40-41; A t h a l y e : l v . 15 p o p u l a r i t y and importance a l l previous c l a s s i c s on Indian l o g i c , and f o r centuries became the focus of study by scholars. The fame of TC rests on at l e a s t two of i t s d i s t i n c t i v e features. F i r s t l y , i t presents an immense contrast to the NS. I t ignores the d i a l e c t i c a l topics on which the NS concentrates, and devotes i t s atten-t i o n mainly to a treatment of the means of knowledge (pramana). I t thus t r u l y deserves the name 'the science of the means of knowledge' ('pvamana-'sastva') , which the Naiyayikas themselves (old as w e l l as new) often employ. Like Gautama, Gangesa also accepts four means of knowledge: perception, inference, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and testimony ($$ 3.4-5). So, the TC i s div i d e d i n t o four p a r t s , each part being devoted to one means of knowledge. Of these, the part concerning inference i s the most important and has been the most i n f l u e n t i a l . The exclusion of d i a l e c t i c a l m a t e r i a l to a great extent and the consequent emphasis on the treatment of inference marks an important stage i n the development of formal, l o g i c i n India. In narrowing down hi s enquiry to the means of knowledge, Gangesa was influenced by Buddhists. Buddhism was almost e x t i n c t i n India by h i s time; and Gangesa disputes with other schools l i k e Mimamsa and Vedanta. But the i n t e r -a c t i o n of the Naiyayikas with the Buddhists i n the past had undoubtedly i t s b e n e f i t s , and these took t h e i r f i r s t tangible shape i n the wr i t i n g s of Gangesa. The TC also discusses questions of metaphysics but only i n c i d e n t a l l y ; however, questions of epistemology, psychology and p h i l o s o -phy of grammar occupy an important p o s i t i o n . 16 Secondly, the TC breaks new ground with regard to s t y l e and organisation. Compared to e a r l i e r works on l o g i c , the TC e x h i b i t s a bet t e r organisation of i t s topics and i t s arguments are more compact and b e r e f t of i r r e l e v a n c i e s . I t shows greater awareness of p r e c i s i o n : terms are often c a r e f u l l y defined, and novel t e c h n i c a l i t i e s and l i n q u i s -t i c devices are used to achieve accuracy. Because of i t s o r i g i n a l i t y of approach and the degree of p r e c i s i o n , the TC sets the boundaries f o r a l l future l o g i c a l enquiry ( I n g a l l s 1951:16). Keith (1921:34) observes, So w e l l done was the task of presentation that i t proved the l a s t work of outstanding merit i n the school; those who followed abandoned the study of the Sutra and the commentaries to devote themselves to the minute d i s c u s s i o n of the points which were early r a i s e d as to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the views of Gangesa and the correctness of h i s opinion. The d i s s e c t i o n of d e t a i l was c a r r i e d so f a r that even s i n g l e sentences l i k e the Vyaptipafloaka grew i n t o separate works of considerable length. $ 0.14 Pro g r e s s i v e l y i n c r e a s i n g a t t e n t i o n to d e t a i l by successive commentators working w i t h i n pre-set boundaries eventually r e s u l t e d i n a fo r b i d d i n g s t y l e with complicated l i n g u i s t i c devices but without a corresponding conceptual gain. While Gangesa himself may be s a i d to have i n i t i a t e d t h i s s t y l e , i t i s h i s commentators—Jagadisa Tarkalamkara (ca 1610 A.D.), Mathuranatha Tarkavagisa (ca 1600-75) and Gadadhara Bhattacarya (ca 1599-1703), to mention only a few—who c a r r i e d i t to i t s extreme. I t reached i t s climax i n the writings of Gadadhara who, there-f o r e , has been described as the 'prince of Indian schoolmen'. Athalye (L, c f XIII, XLV) eloquently characterises the complexities and cumber-someness of this s t y l e : 17 Here we see at one and the same time s c h o l a s t i c i s m at i t s climax and true philosophy at i t s lowest depth. We might wade through volumes of c o n t r o v e r s i a l jargon without coming across a s i n g l e f l a s h of deep thought or r e a l i n s i g h t i n t o the nature of things. Mere c o n v e n t i o n a l i t i e s and d i s t i n c t i o n s without a d i f f e r e n c e are the weapons i n t h i s wordy warfare with which one disputant t r i e s to defend h i s t h e s i s or to vanquish a r i v a l . K e i t h (1921:35) observes i n the same s p i r i t that the followers of Gangesa e x h i b i t "a vast mass of perverted ingenuity worthy of the most f l o u r i s h i n g days of s c h o l a s t i c i s m . " ^ E s p e c i a l l y i n Jagadisa and Gadadhara, not i n f r e q u e n t l y one encounters long compounds sometimes extending over a whole page.^ $0.15 A r e a c t i o n against the excesses of t h i s s t y l e set i n i n the 17th century. T i r e d of the endless s c h o l a s t i c s u b t l e t i e s , l o g i c i a n s began to look f o r a mode of presentation that would capture the e s s e n t i a l s without s a c r i f i c i n g accuracy. The r e s u l t was a s e r i e s of manuals l i k e the Tarka-samgraha (TS) of Annambhatta, the Bhasa-pariaoheda (BP) of Visvanatha, and the Tarka-kaunrudZ of Laugaksi Bhaskara. These works present i n a concise form the l o g i c a l doctrines of Navya-nyaya along with the metaphysical tenets of the t r a d i t i o n a l V a i s e s i k a system, which Gangesa The estimate by_Athalye and Keith i s rather harsh, and i s not quite f a i r to Raghunatha S^iromani (ca 1475-1550 A.D.) who was indeed an o r i g i n a l , though i c o n o c l a s t i c , thinker. Nevertheless, i t i s true i n e s s e n t i a l s of most other commentators of Gangesa. ^ P o t t e r (1957:16-19) t r i e s to j u s t i f y t h i s s t y l e by saying that i t represents the Navya-naiyayika attempt to 'picture the world' i n a t e c h n i c a l language and that i t i s comparable to the s t y l e of contemporary a n a l y t i c philosophy. 1 do not see how such a claim can be j u s t i f i e d with reference to the texts, and wish that Potter had elaborated the point with i l l u s t r a t i o n s . 18 and his commentators had consigned to an insignificant place. They thus carry forward the syncretic tendency initiated by Udayana and f i r s t 18 f u l l y carried out by Sivaditya. These manuals are not original works: their value l i e s in f a i t h f u l l y presenting the principal teachings of the preceding Nn masters. They also often refer to the views of old Naiyayikas for comparison, but their emphasis, so far as logic and epistemology are concerned, i s always on the theories of the NNs. Only in so far as they treat of metaphysical theories as much as logi c a l ones can they be said to be weighted in favour of old Nyaya, although even Gangeia and his commentators may be said to accept the (Vaisesika) 19 metaphysical theories implic i t l y . These manuals roughly mark the end of the development of Indian logic. The British rule i n India which began in 1757 A.D. brought with i t i t s own system of education which gradually eclipsed the indigenous systems of learning. $0.16 Of the three manuals mentioned, TS and BP are the most well-known and, perhaps, the most reliable. Their value i s greatly increased by the fact that the authors themselves have written commentaries on them: Tarka-dZpika. (TD) on TS and Siddhanta-rnuktavalZ (SM) on BP. They are Keith (1921:36-41) regards a l l works that present Vaisesika metaphysics and Nyaya logic as one systematic whole as belonging to 'the syncretist school'. Among these he includes, besides the works of Sivaditya, Annambhatta, ViSvanatha, and Jagadlsa, also the Tarka-bhasa of Keiava Miira (ca 1300 A.D.) and Tarkika-raksa. of Varadaraja (ca l i t h century A.D.). See fn 0.19. 19 _ In fact, Potter (1957:3) regards a l l Navya-naiyayikas, (except perhaps Raghunatha) as members of the syncretic school, implying thereby that they a l l subscribe to the Vaisesika metaphysics. See fn 0.18. 19 admirably suited to the purpose of my thesis, which, as noted above ($ 0.2), is to seize upon the main ideas of the Navya-nyaya theory of inference and to understand them in terms of the contemporary conceptual framework. I have, therefore, heavily relied on both these manuals, while occasionally making use of other sources. Both are genuine Nn texts. As regards TS3 this i s attested by the fact that tradition - 20 regards TD as Gadadhari in miniature (balagadadhazn.)_, thus suggesting that i t comprises the main ideas of Gadadhara without the extravagances of his scholastic style (Athalye:LXII). Bochenski (1961:439) also thinks that TS "contains the essential, and generally accepted doctrines of the 'new' Nyaya school." As for the genuineness of BP3 Vidyabhusana's words leave no doubt: he says (1921:392), "He (Visvanatha) was a native — _ _ i of Navadvipa and an adherent of the Nyaya school of Raghunatha Siromani." Madhavananda (1954:iii) and Satkari Mookerjee (1954:ix) also regard BP as a Navya-nySya text. In general, I pay more attention to TS (and TD) than to BP (and SM). Among the reasons for this are, f i r s t , that i t i s much simpler in style and, second, though more concise, i t is much better in organisation and presentation especially regarding inference. It thus combines "brevity, accuracy and lucidi t y " (Athalye:LXVI). It is not surprising, According to Vidyabhusana (1921:481, 482), 'Gadadhari' is the collective name of a l l of Gadadhara's numerous works including his commentary on Raghunatha's Tattva-aintamani-dZdhiti which is i t s e l f a commentary on the TC. But lately, i t seems to be confined to this last work only. See, for instance, Matilal 1968a:196; Potter 1970:307. 20 therefore, that i t has a t t r a c t e d much more at t e n t i o n both at home and a b r o a d . ^ $0.17 In India l o g i c a l theory even i n i t s most formal phase, i s not altogether free from metaphysics. I t w i l l , therefore, be h e l p f u l i n appreciating the Navya-nyaya theory of inference to have some acquaintance with Navya-nyaya metaphysics. As remarked before ($$0.12, 0.15), the Navya-nyaya metaphysics i s almost wholly borrowed from the t r a d i t i o n a l V a i s e s i k a system (SM 2). I t i s , therefore, usually designated as 'Nyaya-Vaisesika metaphysics 1. I t c o nsists of a scheme of seven categories under which are c l a s s i f i e d 22 a l l the e n t i t i e s of the universe. These categories, thus, are not of This i s i n d i c a t e d by the f a c t that there are at l e a s t 35 commentaries and sub-commentaries on TS (Vidyabhusana 1921:390-91; Athalye:374-75). I do not know the exact number of commentaries on BP, but they are c e r t a i n l y considerably fewer, the two commonly known ones being Dinakarl and Ramarudri. Again BP i s less known to the western p u b l i c . There have been many more En g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n s of TS than BP. See f o r d e t a i l s Potter 1970:273-76, 304-07. 22 While the word ' e n t i t y ' i s often used i n E n g l i s h p h i l o s o p h i c a l l i t e r a t u r e to r e f e r only to concrete i n d i v i d u a l things, i t i s a l s o used sometimes (e.g., by Quine 1961:11-18; Carnap 1956:22-23) i n a much wider sense to include abstract e n t i t i e s as w e l l . This second usage i s p r e t t y standard i n recent I n d o l o g i c a l w r i t i n g s . See f o r instance I n g a l l s 1951:37; Potter 1957:4, 7; 1954:259; Sta a l 1960a:116; Aklujkar 1970a: 23-24; and McDermott 1969:passim, e.g., 3, 29, 79, 80, 81. McDermott f r e e l y t a l k s of unreal e n t i t i e s . I follow t h i s (second) usage of the term: i t provides a convenient way of r e f e r r i n g to a l l s o r t s of things without committing one to accept any d e f i n i t e c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n of the nature of what i s r e f e r r e d to. Thus, to say that the Nyaya-Vaisesika categories are categories of e n t i t i e s leaves the question of the nature of these e n t i t i e s wide open. I t i s usual to hold that they are mostly the sorts of objects one encounters i n experience (Keith 1921:179-81; Hirianna 1932:231). This view seems to be the most natural and i s supported at l e a s t by the etymology of the word 'padartha1 which means things r e f e r r e d 23 l i n g u i s t i c e n t i t i e s . They are: substance (dravya), q u a l i t y (guna), a c t i o n (karma), u n i v e r s a l or g e n e r a l i t y (jati3 samanya), p a r t i c u l a r i t y (witesa), inherence (samavaya) and absence (a2??i5ya). Of these seven categories, only the members of the f i r s t three are s a i d to have existence ( i n space and time) (satta) (BP 8), while the members of the l a s t four lack i t . But a l l except the l a s t are s a i d to have presence (bhava). The l a s t by d e f i n i t i o n lacks i t (BP 8; I n g a l l s 1951:53-54; Keith 1921:180; Athalye:91). $0.18 Substance i s perhaps the most important of the seven categories. There are nine kinds of substances: earth (prthivt), water (ap) , f i r e (tejas), a i r (vayu), ether (akasa), time (kala), space (dik), s e l f (atman), and 'mind' (manas) . Of these, the f i r s t f i v e are regarded as elemental to by a word (TD 2). A category, thus, means a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a l l things having a name ( i . e . , nameable, and according to the Naiyayikas, knowable th i n g s ) . The members of categories cannot a l l be atomic ( i . e . , have the form of an atom), since only some members of the f i r s t category are such, and i t i s doubtful i f the e n t i t i e s of the remaining categories can be so regarded. Potter (1957:4, 5: cf 2, 7) regards the members of a l l categories as abstract elements (which he, strangely enough, c a l l s ' i n d i v i d u a l s ' while admitting that they may be u n i v e r s a l s ) which "combine i n c e r t a i n prescribed ways to form objects" whether concrete or abstract. Potter himself admits (1957:6-7) that the V a i s e s i k a system does not a c t u a l l y make the metaphysical d i s t i n c t i o n between ' i n d i v i d u a l s ' and objects but claims that the epistemological d i s t i n c t i o n made i n the Nyaya system between determinate and indeterminate knowledge corresponds to i t . I am not convinced that t h i s l a t t e r d i s t i n c t i o n has anything to do with Potter's d i s t i n c t i o n . Again, i t i s not c l e a r what according to Potter i s the exact r e l a t i o n between atoms and i n d i v i d u a l s . In one place (1957:2), he gives the impression that they are the same, while i n another (1957:12), he d e f i n i t e l y implies that they are d i f f e r e n t . 23 This i s the usual t r a n s l a t i o n of 'guna'. But Potter (1957:13; 1954a:259-64) points out that i t leads to the confusion of guna with jati (universal) since q u a l i t i e s are u n i v e r s a l s . He suggests 'trope' as an a l t e r n a t i v e t r a n s l a t i o n . 22 (bhautika), that i s , they are the elements out of which the p h y s i c a l universe i s s a i d to be constituted; the f i r s t four and manas are regarded as l i m i t e d i n space and time (murta). Manas i s not only l i m i t e d i n space and time but also atomic. I t i s , therefore, very d i f f e r e n t from the western conception of mind, even though the word 'manas' i s usually trans-l a t e d as 'mind'. To the NN, i t i s simply an organ, a l b e i t an i n t e r n a l one, of knowledge on the same l e v e l as the other organs l i k e eyes and ears. There are an i n f i n i t e number of 'minds' each e t e r n a l and atomic. The other spatio-temporally l i m i t e d s ubstances—earth, water, f i r e , a i r — are, as suggested above, to be taken as classes of observable things bearing the same name. They are also regarded by some (e.g., Potter 1957:4) as atomic, but I think i t i s mistaken to do so. The Naiyayikas are concerned, roughly speaking, with two d i s t i n c t tasks: f i r s t , a cat e g o r i s a t i o n of things given i n experience of one sor t or another and, second, an analysis of the things so categorised. I t i s only when pursu-ing the second task that the Naiyayikas t a l k of the material substances as atomic. They mean thereby not that these substances have the forms of atoms, but that they are formed out of atoms which are themselves beyond experience. That i s , the Naiyayikas, l i k e the Greeks, subscribe to an atomic theory of the universe. S e l f i s s a i d to be the substratum of cognition which i s sa i d to be one of i t s q u a l i t i e s . Two kinds of s e l f are recognised: the supreme s e l f which i s one, omniscient, and e t e r n a l ; and empirical s e l f which i s eterna l and varies from one human body to another. There are, thus, an i n f i n i t e number of empirical selves. An empirical s e l f has a pervasive 23 (as against atomic) character; that i s , i t pervades the whole body i t occupies. I t has i t s own 'mind' and p a r t l y through 'mind', i t acquires a l l i t s experiences, i n t e r n a l as w e l l as external. The other three kinds of substances are ether, time, and space. They are a l l s a i d to be without parts, i n f i n i t e , and e t e r n a l . $0.19 The remaining categories can be dismissed even more b r i e f l y . Q u a l i t i e s and actions do not e x i s t by themselves but are s a i d to inhere i n substances. Universals are properties that determine a c l a s s . The u n i v e r s a l corresponding to a cow, f o r instance, i s cowness. Universals are objective and e t e r n a l r e a l i t i e s e x i s t i n g independently of mind, and are known d i r e c t l y through a kind of extra-ordinary perception (samanya-laksana-pratyasatti) ($$ 1.6, 4.17). Inherence i s a r e l a t i o n which obtains between pai r s l i k e substance and q u a l i t i e s , substance and actions, parts and wholes, and universals and t h e i r instances. I t i s s a i d to be 24 one ( i . e . , without v a r i e t i e s ) and e t e r n a l (TS 8S 79; I n g a l l s 1951:75). P a r t i c u l a r i t y i s what dist i n g u i s h e s one atom from the r e s t . Absence does not mean absolute void (sunya) (which i s a Buddhist conception and which the Naiyayikas dismiss as a pseudo-concept), but a r e l a t i v e absence—absence of something somewhere. For the NNs (as also f o r most old Naiyayikas), absence i s also an independently e x i s t i n g e n t i t y , and i s s a i d to be of d i f f e r e n t kinds. For instance, the absence of a pot before Inherence i s e t e r n a l only i n the sense that i t cannot be destroyed without the e n t i t i e s i t r e l a t e s also being destroyed; i t i s not absolutely eternal l i k e a u n i v e r s a l (or l i k e the supreme s e l f ) . 24 i t i s created i s sa i d to be p r i o r absence (pragabhava), and that a f t e r i t i s destroyed i s c a l l e d p o s t e r i o r absence (dhvarpsabhava) (TS 9, 80; BP 12-13; In g a l l s 1951:54-55; Athalye:99-103, 364-68). 2 5 $0.20 The nature of the categories outlined here makes i t c l e a r that Nn has a thoroughly r e a l i s t metaphysics. The metaphysics stems from the b e l i e f that knowledge n e c e s s a r i l y points to an object beyond i t s e l f . This b e l i e f took shape rather gradually. For instance, there are in d i c a t i o n s that Kanada (ca 1st century A.D.), the founder of the Vai s e s i k a school, recognises only the f i r s t three categories. He d e f i n i t e l y regards the categories of u n i v e r s a l and p a r t i c u l a r i t y as r e l a t i v e to one's i n t e l l i g e n c e and views inherence merely as a r e l a t i o n between cause and e f f e c t (Keith 1921:180-81; Athalye:90). He, thus, does not give to these an objective and independent status, and makes no mention of absence as a category. But the r e a l i s t tendency underlying the f i r s t three categories grew stronger i n course of time, and u n i v e r s a l , p a r t i c u l a r i t y , and inherence were elevated to t h e i r c a t e g o r i a l status. A f u r t h e r and dramatic step was taken when absence also was recognised as a category. The reasoning behind t h i s r e c o g n i t i o n was that i f Knowledge n e c e s s a r i l y transcends i t s e l f , the knowledge of absence also must do so and imply the independent existence of absence. The net r e s u l t i s that one finds i n Nn rather strong P l a t o n i c tendencies (McDermott 1969:53). 25 The ontology o u t l i n e d here i s the one usually associated with Nn. There are, however, c e r t a i n r a d i c a l s within the NN camp l e d by Raghunatha who s i g n i f i c a n t l y modify i t . For a b r i e f account of t h e i r m o d i fications, see Potter 1957:10-15. 25 Some of my l a t e r arguments lean h e a v i l y on t h i s aspect of the Nn system ($$ 1.6, 1.18-19, 3.6). In the Nn discu s s i o n of l o g i c a l theory, not only metaphysical, but also psychological considerations intervene frequently. I generally t r y to separate the l o g i c a l from the psychological (and the metaphysical) issues and concentrate mainly on the l o g i c a l . * * * * * * * For ready reference, a chronological chart of a l l the t r a d i t i o n a l authors whose names appear i n t h i s thesis i s given immediately a f t e r Ch VI. CHAPTER I COGNITION AND SENTENCE (I) $ 1 . 1 Any i n q u i r y i n t o a theory of inference ought to begin with what according to that theory are the elements of inference. For the NNs, these elements are not sentences, but what they c a l l 'jftanas' ( M a t i l a l 1968a:6). I t i s , therefore, advisable to be as c l e a r as p o s s i b l e about what a jftana i s , before considering inference proper. The word 'jftana' i s usually t r a n s l a t e d as 'knowledge'. Not only etymology ( M a t i l a l 1968:6 fn 1), but also several contexts of the use of 'jftana' seem to favour such a rendering.^ However, i n t h e i r e x p l i c i t discussions of l o g i c a l and epistemological i s s u e s — w h i c h are more import-tant f o r my purpose—the NNs use 'ffiana' i n such a way as to make t h i s rendering inaccurate. In En g l i s h , the words 'know' and 'knowledge' (and Cf Sivaditya's remark, atmasrayah praka.s'ah buddhih. "Buddhi i s the l i g h t which resides i n the s e l f " ; and the gloss on i t by Jinavardhana (ca 1400-19), aj^anandhakara-tiraskaraka sakala-padartha-prakasakah pradipa iva dedipyamano yah. pvakasah sa buddhih. "Buddhi i s that l i g h t which, shining b r i g h l y l i k e a lamp, d i s p e l s the darkness of ignorance and il l u m i n a t e s a l l objects". Both c i t e d i n Athalye:175. Buddhi i s here regarded as a f a c u l t y producing (true) knowledge. But the term 'buddhi' i s generally used i n the sense of the product of t h i s f a c u l t y , and then i t i s taken to mean knowledge. ' J?idna' being synonymous with 'buddhi' (fn 1.2) would also be taken to mean knowledge i n such cases. 27 corresponding words i n most other languages) are used i n such a way that the term ' f a l s e knowledge' i s contradictory. In other words, where p i s any sentence and x any i n d i v i d u a l , the c o n d i t i o n a l , " I f x knows that p, then p" i s a n a l y t i c . I f x claimed to know that p and yet i t turned out that p was f a l s e , one would not say i n Engli s h that x's knowledge was f a l s e ; rather one would say that h i s claim to know was f a l s e or that he did not know, though he thought he knew. The NNs do not use jflana i n t h i s way; f o r them jriana could be f a l s e . They e x p l i c i t l y d i s t i n g u i s h between true (yathartha) and f a l s e 2 (ayathartha) jnana. Besides, the terms 'buddhi' and 'jrtixna' are sometimes used i n Nyaya i n the sense of process or f a c u l t y (fn 1.1), and t h i s aspect of t h e i r use i s not captured by 'knowledge'. I t w i l l not do, therefore, 3 to t r a n s l a t e 'ffiana' as 'knowledge' as I n g a l l s (1951:34) and Athalye (173) do. $ 1.2 'Thought' i n the Fregean sense of content or product, not the process, of thought (Frege 1892:62) would be an adequate rendering of 2 TS 34 divides Qnanas i n t o two s o r t s , namely, apprehension (anubhava) and memory (smrti): * sarva-vyavahara-hetur buddhir jnanam. sa dvividha smrtir anubhavas ca. "Buddhi. i s the cause of a l l communication, and i t i s ffiana. I t i s of two s o r t s , memory and apprehension". TS 35 again divides apprehension i n t o two kinds, true and f a l s e : sa (=anubhavah) dvividho yathartho 'yatharthas ca. " I t (apprehen-sion) i s of two s o r t s , true and f a l s e " . Cf fn 3.9. 3 Ing a l l s i s aware of the awkwardness of t h i s t r a n s l a t i o n . He has also gone on record as saying that he holds no b r i e f (other than etymological) f o r 'knowledge' ( M a t i l a l 1968a:6 fn 1). ' jnana' except for a s l i g h t disadvantage: the root 'think' does not always capture the meaning of the corresponding Sanskrit root '' jTia.''. The sentence "aharn ghatam janami"t f o r example, cannot be tr a n s l a t e d very w e l l as "I think a pot". 'Proposition' w i l l have to be ruled out f o r a s i m i l a r reason: i t does not have a convenient corresponding verb as ' jTiZma' has ' jTia'\ ('purpose' c e r t a i n l y w i l l not do). Further, 'jnana' i n Sanskrit has two uses, v i z . , 'jnana o f as i n 'ghatasya jTicavxm' ('the jftana of a pot') and 'jflana that' as i n 'ghato nZla i t i jftanam' ('The jnana that a pot i s blue')- 'Proposition' does not have a use corres ponding to the former. One can only say 'the p r o p o s i t i o n that . . . 1 but not 'the p r o p o s i t i o n of . . . '. Moreover, 'thought' and 'proposi-t i o n ' , l i k e 'knowledge', do not capture the use of 'jnana' i n the sense of a process. $1.3 'Cognition' has an advantage i n a l l these respects over 'thought' and 'proposition', and most c l o s e l y approximates 'jfiana'. Not only i s etymology i n i t s favour (leaving aside 'knowledge', that i s ) but i t a l s o f i t s almost a l l the c o n t e x t s — l o g i c a l as w e l l as n o n - l o g i c a l — i n which the NNs use 'jnana'. I t comes from the root 'cognise' which exactly p a r a l l e l s the Sanskrit root 'jh^a.'. "aharn ghatam janami" fox example can be rendered adequately as "I cognise a pot". Besides, corresponding to the two uses of ' jTiana', i t has the two uses 'cognition that' and 'cogni-t i o n o f . In the former, 'that' i s followed by a sentence while i n the l a t t e r , ' o f i s followed by a name ( s t r i c t l y , a noun-phrase). I s h a l l , therefore, adopt i t i n preference to the other three terms, with the proviso that i t i s to be taken u s u a l l y i n a purely non-psychological 29 sense, i . e . , i n the sense of something objective which may be 'grasped' by many. Since I am p r i m a r i l y concerned with the Nn l o g i c a l theory, the non - l o g i c a l contexts of the use of 'jnana' (where i t means a process) are not r e a l l y important to me, and I could as w e l l have adopted 'thought' or 'proposition' as a t r a n s l a t i o n of 'jKana' without any r e a l l o s s ; f o r , my c e n t r a l preoccupation i s with 'cognition' i n the sense of 'cognition that'. Only i n th i s sense can a cognition be s a i d to be a bearer of truth-values ($$ 1.7, 1.11), and t h i s sense i s equally conveyed by 'pro-p o s i t i o n ' or 'thought'. I t i s only a general desire to be as f a i t h f u l as pos s i b l e to the Nn way of thinking that prompts me to decide i n favour of 'cognition'. Needless to say, then, that though I take 'cognition' as the p r e c i s e equivalent of 'jftana', I regard 'cognition', 'thought' and 'proposition' as synonymous, f or a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes. 'Thought' and 'proposition' are, i n f a c t , sometimes used synonymously i n l o g i c . For example, Frege's 'Gedanke' i s rendered both as 'thought' (by Max Black i n h i s t r a n s l a t i o n of Frege 1892) and as 'proposition' (by Church 1956:26). Quine also t a l k s of a pr o p o s i t i o n as 1 p r o p o s i t i o n a l 'thought' 1 (1960:208). $1.4 M a t i l a l translates 'jnana' as 'cognition p a r t i c u l a r ' rather than as 'cognition'. He says (1968:6, 7), Navya-nyaya, l i k e the older Indian systems of l o g i c , deals rather with what i t c a l l s jftana, by which i t means something close to ' p a r t i c u l a r instances of cognition'. A j'Tiana i s a p a r t i c u l a r j u s t as a co l o r spot or a tone i s a p a r t i c u l a r . I t can very w e l l be viewed as an event. I do not think M a t i l a l i s r i g h t . F i r s t , a jrlana, i n so f a r as i t i s 30 regarded as a bearer of truth-value, cannot be viewed as an event, though i t i s associated with an event in the sense that i t can be thought. An event cannot be true or false. Second, even i f each cognition i s a particular, that is no reason for not using 'cognition' as a general term and translating jftana as 'cognition'. Every man, for example, i s a particular man and yet we do not go about talking of man-particulars. Potter, who argues (1954a:259-63; cf 1954b:271-73; 1957:13) that for the NNs qualities (gunas) are particulars, or non-repeatable entities, readily sees this point. He says (1954a:263) that though blue-colour (nZlarupam) is a particular, yet "'nZlarupam' i s a general term denoting any single blue-colour inhering in i t s particular substance". My term, then, for 'jftana' i s 'cognition', and i t brings out the fact that 'jfiana' i s used in a much wider sense than 'knowledge'."' $ 1.5 My proposal to use 'cognition' synonymously (in lo g i c a l contexts) with 'proposition' and 'thought' immediately raises the question of the ontological status of cognitions. For Frege, propositions are abstract entities which, though meanings (i.e., in Frege's terms, Sinn or sense) Cognition would be an event only in the psychological sense of a mental occurrence, a sense in which Matilal, l i k e myself, is not interested. "*This wide sense reminds one of Descartes' use of 'thought' (cogitatio, pensee). However, Descartes' use is even wider than the Nn use of 'cognition' in the double sense of including non-cognitive elements and also of referring to mental acts or states. See Kenny 1968:44; and Descartes, Second Meditation in Kemp Smith 1958:186. It i s , I think, i n order to bring out ex p l i c i t l y this width of use of 'thought' and 'think' that Anscombe and Geach (1964:70) translate 'res cogitans ' as 'conscious being' rather than as 'thinking thing' as Kemp Smith does. 31 of sentences, are yet independent of any sentences i n the sense that t h e i r existence i s not dependent upon that of the sentences of which they are the meanings. That they can be associated with sentences, and that they are known only through language (or that they are known at a l l ) i s ac c i d e n t a l to t h e i r existence. Accordingly, Frege's view of pr o p o s i t i o n i s regarded as P l a t o n i c (Church 1956:25 fn 66). There i s no doubt that f o r the NNs cognitions are likewise not sentences ( M a t i l a l 1968a:6), but meanings of sentences. However, the c r u c i a l question i s : Are they independent of p a r t i c u l a r sentences or of any or a l l sentences, i . e . , of language? This i s a very d i f f i c u l t question to decide, since the NNs do not seem to be aware of i t , and do not consciously discuss i t . But I think the answer i s that f o r the NNs cognitions are, indeed, abstract e n t i t i e s independent of language. Some support f o r t h i s answer might at f i r s t appear to be f o r t h -coming from the Nn theory of indeterminate cognition (nirvikalpaka-jHana). An indeterminate cognition i s , according to I n g a l l s (1951:40; cf Radhakrishnan 1927:57; M a t i l a l 1968a:12), l i n g u i s t i c a l l y i n e x p r e s s i b l e , and hence l i n g u i s t i c a l l y independent. In so f a r as every determinate c o g n i t i o n i s held to be b u i l t upon an indeterminate cognition, t h i s might suggest that a l l cognitions are l i n g u i s t i c a l l y independent. I am not sure, however, i f In g a l l ' s view i s cor r e c t . I t i s true that an attempt to i n t e r p r e t the words 'avyapadesya' and 'vyavasdyatmaka' i n NS 1.1.4 eventually led to the d i s t i n c t i o n between indeterminate and determinate (savikalpaka) cognitions, and that 'avyapadesya' was i n t e r -preted by Vatsyayana and Uddyotakara as 'not being expressible by words'. 32 I t i s also true that T r i l o c a n a (9th century A.D.) who was perhaps one of the f i r s t Naiyayikas to comment on the d i s t i n c t i o n , ^ held that an indeterminate cognition i s l i n g u i s t i c a l l y i n e x p r e s s i b l e (Keith 1921:70, 72). But the NNs do not seem to subscribe to t h i s view. In f a c t , Annambhatta gives |This i s something! (idam kirncit (TS 42)) as an example of an indeterminate cognition, which c l e a r l y shows that an indeterminate cognition i s l i n g u i s t i c a l l y expressible (though i t need not be so ex-pressed).^ According to Schmithausen (1970), the oldest evidence f o r the d i s t i n c t i o n between determinate and indeterminate c o g n i t i o n i s to be found i n Vindhyavasin (not l a t e r than 4th century A.D.) and Prasastapada. S a s t r i (1964:497), however, thinks that the d i s t i n c t i o n was f i r s t i n t r o -duced by Dignaga. ^The Nn theory of indeterminate cognition i s e s s e n t i a l l y a psyc h o l o g i c a l theory, and has at l e a s t two versions. According to one, an indeterminate cognition i s merely the cognition of something as un d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from other things. As soon as an object i s presented to the senses, what one has i s only a bare awareness of i t s existence (satta, bhava-rupa, vastu-rupa-matra) without any of i t s p r o p e r t i e s . According to another version, an indeterminate cognition also involves the apprehension of p r o p e r t i e s , although these are not apprehended as belonging to the object i n question. That i s , on th i s v e r s i o n , both the object and i t s properties are f i r s t apprehended i n i s o l a t i o n i n an indeterminate cognition, and subsequently brought together i n a determinate cognition. On e i t h e r version, when properties are apprehended as belonging to the object, and the object i s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and i d e n t i f i e d , one i s sa i d to have a determinate cognition (e.g., |This i s a j a r | ) (see Conven-t i o n D f o r the use of sl a s h e s ) . I t i s only when the properties are apprehended i n r e l a t i o n to the object, that they are c a l l e d ' q u a l i f i e r s ' , and the object i s c a l l e d 'the (chief) q u a l i f i c a n d ' . Hence, an indeter-minate cognition i s described as not having the q u a l i f i e r - q u a l i f i c a n d r e l a t i o n (visesana-visesya-sambandhanavagahi (TD 42; c f SM 58)). Both versions also agree i n holding that an indeterminate cognition, unlike a determinate one, can be neit h e r true nor f a l s e (cf M a t i l a l 1968a:18), and that corresponding to each determinate cognition, there i s an indeter-minate cognition from which i t i s b u i l t . There i s again a d i f f e r e n c e of opinion as to how an indeterminate cognition i s known: some hold that i t i s a genuine case of (conscious) perception, while others l i k e Gangesa and 33 $1.6 I b e l i e v e , however, that good support f o r the view that cognitions are abstract e n t i t i e s independent of language i s to be found i n the Nn theory of universals (samanyas, jatis). The NNs hold that corresponding to each cl a s s of p a r t i c u l a r s there i s a u n i v e r s a l which inheres (samavetam) i n each of them, and yet i s d i s t i n c t from any one of them. They also hold that a u n i v e r s a l i s e t e r n a l , which means that i t i s independent of the p a r t i c u l a r s i n which i t inheres (and of language). For, i f i t were dependent on them, i t would also be, l i k e them, p e r i s h -able. A u n i v e r s a l i s known, according to the NNs, by means of a kind of extra-ordinary perception c a l l e d ' i n t u i t i o n of u n i v e r s a l s ' ('sarrianya-laksana pratyasatti') ($ 4.17). Annambhatta s u c c i n c t l y states the Nn theory of universals as follows: n-Ltyam ekam anekanugatam samanyam. "A u n i v e r s a l i s e t e r n a l , one and r e s i d i n g i n many". ' TS 77 (cf SM 8; Athalye:91,209; Keith 1921:93-94; Stcherbatsky 1962a:25,48; M a t i l a l 1968a:38). The NNs also hold that a cognition i s a q u a l i t y (guna) of the soul (TS 73; BP 87-88). A q u a l i t y belongs to the second category i n the Nn metaphysi-c a l scheme ($ 0.17), and hence cannot be a u n i v e r s a l which belongs to the Visvanatha maintain that i t i s to be i n f e r r e d . For d e t a i l s see TS, TD 42; BP, SM 58; Keith 1921:72-74; Radhakrishnan 1927:57-60; Athalye:215-20; I n g a l l s 1951:39-40. An explanation of the notions of q u a l i f i e r and q u a l i f i c a n d i s to be found i n $$ 1.8-10 below. An adequate disc u s s i o n of the Nn theory of indeterminate cognition would be too long a diagression from my main purpose. S u f f i c e i t to say that I have been unable to make good sense of t h i s theory, nor have I come across a s a t i s f a c t o r y treatment of i t by modern English w r i t e r s . I have, therefore, ignored i t i n the re s t of my t h e s i s . I t i s f o r t h i s reason that I say below ($ 1.8) that a cognition i s n e c e s s a r i l y q u a l i f i -c a t i v e ( i . e . , determinate ( M a t i l a l 1968a:4)). 34 fourth. A u n i v e r s a l i s a repeatable e n t i t y i n the sense that though one, i t occurs i n many. A q u a l i t y , on the other hand, as Potter (1954a:259-63) has e f f e c t i v e l y argued, i s not repeatable i n t h i s way according to the g NNs, and must be regarded as unique or p a r t i c u l a r . Given that a cognition i s a p a r t i c u l a r , and the view about a u n i v e r s a l mentioned above, i t follows that f o r each class of cognitions that are p a r t i c u l a r s , there i s a u n i v e r s a l . The c r u c i a l question i s as to what t h i s u n i v e r s a l i s . I think i t i s i t s e l f a cognition. Such a view, of course, immediately leads to the c o n t r a d i c t i o n that a cognition i s both a u n i v e r s a l and a p a r t i c u l a r . The c o n t r a d i c t i o n , however, i s only apparent, and can be resolved by noting that the NNs use 'cognition' i n two senses, v i z . , psychological and l o g i c a l ($$ 1.1-3, 1.11, 3.6, 3.10-16). When a cognition i s considered i n r e l a t i o n to a thinker, i t i s a q u a l i t y of the thinker, and hence a p a r t i c u l a r . When i t i s con-sidered i n i s o l a t i o n from thinkers, i t i s a u n i v e r s a l . For instance, when se v e r a l persons think 2 + 2 = 4 , the thought of each such person i s , according to the NNs, a cognition ( i n the psychological sense), and i s a p a r t i c u l a r . The thoughts of a l l such persons put together c o n s t i t u t e a class of p a r t i c u l a r s . Corresponding to t h i s c l a s s , the u n i v e r s a l i s the thought 2 + 2 = 4 considered independently of the thinkers ( i . e . , |2 + 2 = 4|), which also the NNs regard as a cognition ( i n the l o g i c a l sense). As a u n i v e r s a l , the c o g n i t i o n |2 + 2 = 4| i s an abstract and e t e r n a l l y This i s a rather p e c u l i a r use of the term ' q u a l i t y ' , since i n E n g l i s h a q u a l i t y i s regarded as a repeatable e n t i t y . I t i s , therefore, d e s i r a b l e to t r a n s l a t e 'guna' by some other more adequate term. I cannot think of any, nor am I happy with 'trope' suggested by Potter. See fn 0.23. 35 existing entity. The distinction between these two uses of a cognition corresponds, on a li n g u i s t i c plane, to that between a token and a type. The Nn theory of inference would be i n t e l l i g i b l e only i f cognition i s taken as a type or a universal, i.e., i n i t s logical sense ($$ 1.1-3, 3.10-16). By and large, the NNs themselves use i t in that sense i n typically logical contexts. These considerations show, I think, that the NNs are, i n their ontology of cognitions, i n the same camp as Frege 9 i s with regard to Gedanken. $ 1.7 Cognitions thus conceived are, according to the NNs, the true bearers of truth-values. The NNs distinguish between a true cognition (yathartha-jftana) and a false cognition (ayathartha ffiana) (fns 1.2, 3.9), and have usually cognitions in mind when they talk of truth or f a l s i t y . They also talk of sentences as being true or f a l s e , ^ but i n McDermott (1969:53) characterises the Nn position as Platonic, although being concerned with a different purpose, she does not go into the reasons for her characterisation. Cf Matilal 1968a:17. Jayanta Bhatta (Nyaya-ma?ljari3 Pt II3 p 100) e x p l i c i t l y advocates the l i n g u i s t i c independence of cognitions. Although he belongs to the 10th century A.D., and hence according to my clas s i f i c a t i o n ($$ 0.1, 0.12-13, fn 1.15) must be regarded as an old Naiyayika, his advocacy shows that the thesis of the independence of cognition was already present in the Nyaya tradition. 10 vakyam dvividham. vaidikam tauhtkam ca, vaidikam isvardktatvdt sarvam eva pramanam. laukvkam tv aptoktam pramanam. anyad apramanam. "A sentence i s of two kinds, scriptural and mundane (human). A scriptural sentence i s always true since i t i s uttered by God, while a mundane sentence i s true when uttered by a reliable person. Any other (mundane) sentence i s false". TS 62. 36 a secondary sense. A sentence i s true i f and only i f the cognition i t expresses is true. It is not uncommon for the NNs to employ the same terminology indifferently for cognitions or for sentences (cf $ 3.23 and Convention E). $ 1.8 A cognition is said to be necessarily qualificative (see fn 1.7). That i s , i t i s a complex where something i s asserted to be qualified by something else. The constituents of a cognition are said to be q u a l i f i -cand(s) and qua l i f i e r ( s ) . That which is qualified (visista) is called 'a qualificand' ('visesya' or 'dharmin'), and that which qualifies i s called 'a qualifier' ('visesana' or 'dharma')A qualificand and a qual i f i e r are not words, but something non-linguistic. For example, i n the cognition, |The pot i s blue| (ghato nilah)3 the qualificand i s not 13 the word 'pot', but something to which that word refers. The qua l i f i e r Ingalls 1951:39-40; Matilal 1966:366, 388; 1968a:ll-19; Potter 1957:7; cf SM 58. 12 Potter (1954a:261-63) objects to translating the expression "ghato nZlah" as "The pot is blue". He claims that (1) i t i s not a singular (atomic) sentence at a l l , since both of the terms are general; and that (2) i n fact i t i s not even an assertion, since i t lacks a verb. It i s , according to him, an ascript, and functions as a term rather than as a sentence. I find his reasoning unconvincing. An expression l i k e "ghato nz-lah" can in Sanskrit act either as a descriptive phrase or as a sentence depending on the context. The non-employment of the copula or other f i n i t e verbs i n the construction of sentences i s quite common in good Sanskrit. Again, whether an expression l i k e "ghato ntlah" i s to be treated as a singular or a general sentence i s indicated by the context. There are no a r t i c l e s — d e f i n i t e or i n d e f i n i t e — i n Sanskrit, and words of quantification like ' a l l ' (sarva) and 'some' (keoit) are rarely used. The purpose of quantification i s achieved by employing abstract properties (Matilal 1968a:77-81; Ingalls 1951:50, 56). "ghato mlah", thus, admits of four interpretations: an atomic sentence, a general sentence, a definite description and an indefinite description. See Convention B. 37 of this cognition is the quality blue, not the word 'blue 1. The NNs are 14 quite emphatic on this point (Matilal 1968a:12, 28). There can be more than one qualifier and more than one q u a l i f i -cand (usually, each in relation to a different entity) in a cognition in which case there w i l l be one chief qualifier (mukhya visesana) and one chief qualificand (mukhya visesya)^ A cognition must consist of at least one qualifier and one qualificand. $ 1.9 One might take objection to the view that qualificands and qualifiers are objects: How can a concrete entity called 'Devadatta' be an element in the cognition, |Devadatta i s fat| (pZno devadattah)3 which is an abstract entity? One, of course, sometimes does say things like "Mary i s no longer i n my thoughts" and "My mother was i n my dream yesterday". But such expressions are i l l u s t r a t i v e of the figurative or non-literal use of language. They do not mean that Mary or my mother was physically present. They mean rather that the idea or the concept of them was present. Similarly, in the cognition just mentioned, the qualificand cannot be the physical entity Devadatta, but the idea or the concept of Devadatta. It is not clear what the NNs' answer to such an objection would be. The fact remains that they i n s i s t that the elements of a cognition 14 Modern writers usually contrast Nyaya logic with western logic by saying that the former deals with objects, while the latter deals with expressions. Thus, S. Bhattacarya (1955:157) observes, " . . . in Nyaya inference we are not dealing with words or sentences, but with objects of the real world". Similar remarks are to be found i n Ingalls 1951:34, 43, 46, 50, 68, 78. For an example see $ 2.22. 38 are not concepts, j u s t as they i n s i s t that they are not words. For them, the elements are e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s , properties or r e l a t i o n s themselves. However, i t might be pointed out, i n attenuation of the Nn p o s i t i o n , that the t a l k of something concrete occurring i n something abstract i s a f t e r a l l not so odd as i t seems, and that i t finds favour even with some i n f l u e n t i a l contemporary philosophers. For instance, 16 those who recognise sets b e l i e v e them to be abstract e n t i t i e s , and yet t h e i r members (which may be s a i d to occur i n them) may be concrete e n t i t i e s . In f a c t , a cognition may be regarded as an (unordered) p a i r whose members are the q u a l i f i c a n d and the q u a l i f i e r . $ 1.10 S t r i c t l y speaking, q u a l i f i e r s and q u a l i f i c a n d s are not the only elements of a cognition. The r e l a t i o n or connector (samsarga) l i n k i n g a q u a l i f i e r and a q u a l i f i c a n d i s also a necessary element, although i t does not usually appear i n the v e r b a l expression of a cognition ( M a t i l a l 1968a:18). The 'contentness'^ (visayata) of a cognition i s s a i d to comprise ' q u a l i f icandness' ^  (visesyata), 1 q u a l i f i e m e s s 1 ^ (visesanata or prakarata) and 1 r e l a t i o n - n e s s ' (samsargata) ( M a t i l a l 1968a:16-17; Potter 1957:7). A q u a l i f i e r can q u a l i f y i t s q u a l i f i c a n d i n varying ways according as the r e l a t i o n l i n k i n g the two v a r i e s . This r e l a t i o n i s s a i d to be of 16 There i s an exception to t h i s : i f a u n i t - c l a s s i s i d e n t i f i e d with i t s only member, as i s done by some (fn 6.5), i t becomes a p h y s i c a l e n t i t y , i f i t s (only) member i s such. *^See Convention C f o r the s p e c i a l use of quotes i n such cases. 39 three p r i n c i p a l s o r t s : inherence (samavaya)3 contact (sanryoga) and p e c u l i a r r e l a t i o n or p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i f i c a t i o n (svarupa sambandha) (Ingalls 1951:43, 74-75). For example, potness i s s a i d to q u a l i f y , or occur i n , pot by inherence i n the cognition, |The pot has potness| (ghatatva-visisto ghatah)j fire i s s a i d to q u a l i f y mountain by contact • • • • i n the c o g n i t i o n , |lhe mountain has f i r e | (parvato vahniman); and blue colour i s s a i d to q u a l i f y the pot by p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i f i c a t i o n i n the cognition, |The pot i s blue| (m.lo ghatah). The d i s t i n c t i o n between inherence and p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i f i c a t i o n i s t i e d up with the d i s t i n c t i o n between the s o - c a l l e d generic properties or class-characters or universals (jati) on the one hand, and imposed properties (upadhi) on the other. This l a t t e r d i s t i n c t i o n roughly corresponds to the A r i s t o t e l i a n d i s t i n c t i o n 18 between e s s e n t i a l and a c c i d e n t a l p r o p e r t i e s . $ 1.11 The main points I have made so f a r are these: I choose the term 'cognition' as a t r a n s l a t i o n of ''Qfuxna1 i n preference to 'knowledge', 'thought' and 'proposition'. 'JrVzna' i s used by the NNs i n two main senses, namely, (a) i n the sense of the process or a c t i v i t y of cognising; and (b) i n the sense of the product or content of such a c t i v i t y ($ 1.1). Sense (b) has two sub-cases, (b^) knowledge or true p r o p o s i t i o n (pramd); and (b^) a p r o p o s i t i o n , true or f a l s e . I use 'cognition' mostly i n sense O^). In t h i s sense (and hence i n sense (b^) as well) a cognition i s the sense of the sentences expressing i t . I t i s also an e t e r n a l , abstract For further discussion on q u a l i f i c a n d s and q u a l i f i e r s , see $$ 2.26-31 below. The d i f f i c u l t i e s of i n d i v i d u a t i n g cognitions are discussed i n $$ 2.18-20; see also $$ 2.21-25. 40 e n t i t y . Truth-values belong p r i m a r i l y to cognitions, but only secondarily to sentences. Sense (a) i s a psychological sense which I regard as not relevant to my purpose of presenting an account, i n contemporary terms, of the Nn theory of inference. Hence, I ignore i t . * * * A * ft A $ 1.12 Cognitions are communicable only through language. So, the NNs, though they were p r i m a r i l y concerned with cognitions, were nevertheless led to a study of l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s , e s p e c i a l l y the sentence and i t s elements. L i n g u i s t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n s were being c a r r i e d out by the school of grammarians, which had a long t r a d i t i o n of great thinkers i n -cluding P a n i n i (ca 400 B.C.), Katylyana (ca 300 B.C.), P a t a f i j a l i (ca 150 B.C.) and Bhartrhari (ca 450 A.D.). A l l the same, the NNs (and i n f a c t members of every other Indian school of philosophy) thought the matter of s u f f i c i e n t importance not to be l e f t to the grammarians alone. And they devoted considerable a t t e n t i o n to grammatical and l i n g u i s t i c questions. There was, i n f a c t , an important reason f o r the NNs1 i n t e r e s t i n sentences. Though they did not r e a l i s e i t , they were i n e v i t a b l y faced with the problem of i n d i v i d u a t i o n of the e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c e n t i t i e s they allowed, namely, cognitions. Lacking any other p r i n c i p l e of i n d i v i d -uation, they were forced to r e l y on l i n g u i s t i c considerations. I s h a l l have more to say on t h i s point l a t e r ($$ 2.18-20). Though the d e c l a r a t i v e sentence as the verbal expression of a cognition was of prime concern f o r the NNs, yet t h e i r account of the nature 41 of a sentence i s quite general and i s appl i c a b l e to non-declarative sentences as w e l l . In f a c t , quite a few of the i l l u s t r a t i v e examples are imperative sentences (cf fn 1.19). $ 1.13 One common Nn d e f i n i t i o n of a sentence i s that i t i s simply 19 any group of words. As thus defined, a sentence could consist of only nouns, or only non-nouns or a mixture of both nouns and non-nouns; there i s n o . r e s t r i c t i o n as to the grammatical categories of the components. This means that any nonsensical set of words counts as a sentence. To take an oft-repeated example from P a t a n j a l i , the conglomeration of words, Ten pomegranates, s i x cakes, a pond, a goat-skin, a b a l l of pounded sesame, t h i s i s the lower thigh of an unmarried g i r l , the father of Sphaiyakrta i s emaciated, 2® would, on t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , be a sentence. This i s an absurd s i t u a t i o n and the NNs avoid i t by d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between adequate and inadequate 21 sentences and by s e t t i n g up c r i t e r i a of adequacy. When the NNs t a l k of sentences, what they have i n mind i s usually an adequate sentence. $ 1.14 There was a controversy between the grammarians and the Naiyayikas regarding what are the chief components of an (adequate) sentence. The 19 vdkyam pada-samuhah yathd gam anayeti. . . . "A sentence i s a group of words; e.g., 'Bring a (or the) cow . . . '". TS 59. 20 -dasadddimani sad apupah kundam ajajinam palala-pindah adharorukam etat kvMidryati sphaiyakrtasya pita, pratislna i t i (The Vydkarana-mahabhdsya of Pataftjali. Edited by F. Ki e l h o r n , revised 3rd e d i t i o n by K . ' v . Abhyankar; Poona, BORI, Vol I (1962) , p 38. Also c i t e d i n NBh 5 . 1 . 1 0 and Vidyabhusana 1921:117 fn 1 ) . 21 These are discussed i n $$ 2 . 1 - 1 7 below. 42 grammarians held that the chief component i s a f i n i t e verb, while the Naiyayikas maintained that i t was a subject-noun ( i . e . , a word with the nominative case-ending). This controversy i s an off-shoot of the semantic controversy about the character of the chief q u a l i f i c a n d i n a cognition. For the grammarians the chief q u a l i f i c a n d was an action (kriya, karma); for the Naiyayikas on the other hand i t was an o n t i c (substantive) e n t i t y . Since a cognition can only be expressed by a sentence, the grammarians' view meant that the chief q u a l i f i c a n d must be expressed by that component of a sentence which s i g n i f i e s a c t i o n . As most sentences i n Sanskrit can be s a i d to contain f i n i t e verbs e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y , i t i s the f i n i t e verb which, on th i s view, generally expresses the c h i e f q u a l i f i -cand. This does not mean, however, that the f i n i t e verb i s essential for a sentence as M a t i l a l (1966:380, cf 377-78) thinks. For there are sentences which, while containing words s i g n i f y i n g a c t i o n , yet do not e x p l i c i t l y contain f i n i t e verbs, nor i s i t p o s s i b l e to supply one (e.g., "alarn krZditva" "Enough of playing!!}-^- In such cases, the chief q u a l i f i -cand i s expressed by ver b a l elements other than f i n i t e verbs. The Naiyayika view that the chief q u a l i f i c a n d i s expressed by a subject-noun has indeed the consequence that a subject-noun i s a necessary constituent of a sentence. I f i t i s not e x p l i c i t l y present, i t must be understood. For instance, i n a sentence l i k e "pidhehi" ("Shut"), a word with the f i r s t - c a s e termination l i k e 'tvam' ('you') i s to be understood. However, the Naiyayikas have d i f f i c u l t y i n accepting t h i s consequence because, they are aware of c e r t a i n counter-examples (e.g., "alam kzn-ditva" mentioned above), and t h e i r e f f o r t s to deal with them are none too happy. 43 What emerges from these considerations i s that the controversy between the grammarians and the Naiyayikas i s not, nor i s i t intended to be, about the s y n t a c t i c c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n of a sentence. I t i s 22 p r i m a r i l y a semantic controversy with c e r t a i n s y n t a c t i c overtones. $1.15 The view that a sentence i s any group of words n a t u r a l l y leads to d i s c u s s i o n of the nature of a word. The Nn d e f i n i t i o n of a word i s semantic. Annambhafpa states i t thus: saktam padam. "A word i s that which has sakti". TS 59; SM 81. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the word 'sakti' used i n t h i s d e f i n i t i o n presents a problem. The NNs (and other schools of Indian philosophy as well) make a d i s t i n c t i o n between sakti and artha (or padartha) (TS, TD 59; BP, SM 81). These words are usually taken by modern Engl i s h w r i t e r s to mean 23 capacity (or power, potency) f or meaning and meaning r e s p e c t i v e l y . But i f sakti i s taken to mean the capacity f o r meaning, the above d e f i n i -t i o n becomes vacuous: every s i g n or sound (or conglomeration of them) can, i n p r i n c i p l e , be s a i d to have the capacity f o r meaning as capacity is generally understood in English. Obviously, the NNs d i d not want that For further d e t a i l s on t h i s controversy, see M a t i l a l 1966:377-81, 388-92; Aklujkar 1970a:95-96; Staal 1967:68; Athalye:330-32. See al s o $ 2.22. 23 The NNs also regard sakti as the r e l a t i o n of a word to i t s meaning: saktis ca padena saha padarthasya sambandhah (SM 82; cf TD 59). They seem to make no d i s t i n c t i o n between saying that sakti i s the capacity for meaning and saying that i t i s the r e l a t i o n of a word to i t s meaning. 44 d e f i n i t i o n to be vacuous. Whenever the NNs talked of words as having sakti, t h e i r i n t e n t i o n was not to characterise the set of a l l p o s s i b l e signs or sounds, but only a proper subset of them, namely, the set of those signs or sounds, which as a matter of f a c t have meaning i n a nat u r a l language (Sanskrit i n t h i s case). Sdkti then, f o r the NNs, i s coextensive with artha: not only every meaningful s t r i n g has sakti3 but 24 25 also no nonsensical s t r i n g (e.g., 'kacatapa') has i t . Thus, having sakti amounts to having artha, and Annambhatta's d e f i n i t i o n can be rendered by saying that a word i s that which has meaning (or i s Kav i r a j a Visvanatha (14th century A.D.), Sahitya-darpana Ch I I , verse 2ab. Although K a v i r a j a Visvanatha ( d i s t i n c t from the NN Visvanatha) i s a p o e t i c i a n , h i s view i s representative of a l l schools of Indian philosophy, i n c l u d i n g the NNs. 25 This f a c t shows, I think, that 'the capacity f o r meaning' i s not the r i g h t expression with which to t r a n s l a t e 'sakti'. For, that expression suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y , denied by the NNs, of there being s t r i n g s which have the capacity f o r meaning and yet no meaning. Aklujkar thinks that a d i s t i n c t i o n should be made between actual capacity and p o t e n t i a l capacity, and suggests 'actual capacity' as an equivalent of 'sakti'. However, I do not f i n d Aklujkar's d i s t i n c t i o n h e l p f u l . Whether or not such a d i s t i n c t i o n could be made with regard to 'capacity' taken as a (human) d i s p o s i t i o n a l word, I do not think i t could be made with regard to 'capacity' as applied to inanimate things, and i n p a r t i c u l a r , to words. I t might be argued that there i s something l i k e a d i s t i n c t i o n , even i n the case of words, between actual and p o t e n t i a l capacity: con-s i d e r the word ' h o r r i b l e ' ; we have the corresponding word ' h o r r i d ' . But f o r the word ' t e r r i b l e ' , we do not have a corresponding word ' t e r r i d ' . However, i f the d i s t i n c t i o n between a c t u a l and p o t e n t i a l capacity could be made to apply to expressions, as suggested by th i s example, i t could only be made to do so r e l a t i v e to a generative ( i . e . , e x p l i c i t ) grammar which y i e l d s i t as an 'unactualized p o s s i b l e ' . The NNs had no such s o p h i s t i c a t e d grammatical theory i n mind. 45 26 27 meaningful). Rendered in this way, the definition is clearly semantic. $ 1.16 As to what the meaning (artha) of a word (or phrase) i s , there 28 are several views in the Indian tradition. But the Nn view, known as jati-visista-vyakti-vada, i s that the meaning of a word is the individual 29 as qualified by the universal. By this, of course, the NNs do not mean 26 >• This rendering has the consequence that artha and sakti coincide; but this consequence does not seem to alarm modern writers. For instance Raja (1963:17-25, 69-70) and Athalye (333-34) use 'the capacity for mean-ing and 'meaning' indiscriminately as equivalents of sakti, and Matilal (1966:379) translates "saktam padam" as (what is) "the meaning-bearing element of a sentence". 27 The NNs distinguish between primary and derivative meanings of words. The former i s called 'abhidheya' (also 'vacya'a 'mukhya'), and the latter 'laksya' (also 'gauna') (BP, SM 82; TD 59; Aklujkar 1971:$ 4.1). My remarks are confined to primary meaning only, since, according to the NNs,'sakti'and 'abhidha' (from which 'abhidheya' i s derived) are synonymous (SM 81; Athalye:337). Anandavardhana (ca 9th century A.D.), a non-naiyayika, developed the theory of vyahgya (suggestive or metaphorical meaning) which i s regarded as the third variety of meaning in addition to abhidheya and laksya. The NNs do not recognise this variety (SM 81; TD 59; Athalye:337). 28 The chief among these, besides the Nn view under consideration, are: kevala-jati-vada (the view that the (corresponding) univeral alone i s the meaning of a word; kevala-vyakti-vada (the view that an individual alone i s the meaning); and apoha-vada (the view that the meaning of a word (e.g., 'cow') i s the 'opposite' of the 'opposite' (e.g., non-non-cow). For a discussion of these, see Athalye:334-37; G. Sastri 1959:136-71; Sharma 1969:21-43. These theories are not intended to apply to 'inde-clinables', i.e., to what in traditional logic are called, roughly, 'syncategormatic words' or what Church (1956:31-39) calls 'improper sym-bols*. See fn 1.32. 29 There is a difference of opinion as to what precisely i s the Nn position. Athalye (334-36) thinks that i t i s kevala-vyakti-vada, while G. Sastri (1959:141-42) holds that i t i s jati-visista-vyakti-vada. Raja (1963:70-71) thinks that while some NNs advocate {jati-visista-vyakti-vada, others advocate kevala-vyakti-vada. He cites some evidence*on either side, 46 that the meaning of a (general) word i s any p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l . They mean rather that a (general) word i s i n d i f f e r e n t l y a p p l i c a b l e to any one of a whole cla s s of objects determined by a property. They say, for instance, that the word 'horse' i s not ap p l i c a b l e to ants or elephants, but only to horses, because only these are determined by the u n i v e r s a l , horseness (cf Athalye:335; G. S a s t r i 1959:139). This suggests that what the NNs have i n mind when they say that the meaning of a word i s an i n d i v i d u a l i s the extension (or reference) of that word. But i n so f a r as the i n d i v i d u a l s to which a word i s applicable are s a i d to be determined 30 by a u n i v e r s a l , the word must also have int e n s i o n (or sense). Thus, a word, according to the NNs, must have both i n t e n s i o n and extension but the evidence i n favour of kevala-vyakti-vada does not seem to me very strong. My account of the Nn p o s i t i o n i s based on TD 59 and SM 81. While TD 59 e x p l i c i t l y says that the meaning of a word i s an i n d i v i d u a l as q u a l i f i e d by the u n i v e r s a l (alone), SM 81 holds that the meaning i s an i n d i v i d u a l as q u a l i f i e d by both the u n i v e r s a l and the form or 'con-f i g u r a t i o n ' (akrti). Thus, SM 81, l i k e NS 2.2.65 makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between form and u n i v e r s a l , and thereby implies that a form i s not a u n i v e r s a l . But a form i s c l e a r l y a u n i v e r s a l , and perhaps f o r th i s reason, the d i s t i n c t i o n between the two tends to be o b l i t e r a t e d i n Nn. I have, therefore, understood SM 81 as advocating jati-visista-vyakti-vada only. Raja (1963:70, cf fn 4) also thinks that t h i s i s how i t should be under-stood. He says, "the generic shape ( i . e . , form) i s part of the u n i v e r s a l and need not be included separately" (cf Datta 1960:270). See Chatterjee 1950:329; Datta 1960:266. 30 For my l i m i t e d purpose, I am using 'intension' and 'sense' on the one hand, and 'extension' and 'reference' on the other interchange-ably i n the sense of Carnap (1956:18-19, 40-41, 21, 23). According to Carnap, s i n g u l a r as w e l l as general words can have int e n s i o n or extension; but Frege does not t a l k i n h i s published w r i t i n g s , about the sense or reference of general words. Jackson (1963:84-87) argues that he (Frege) does i n h i s unpublished w r i t i n g s . 47 (cf Athalye:337). But oddly enough, the NNs also hold that a word has both intension and extension i n all of i t s uses. This would mean, for instance, that i n a sentence l i k e "Man i s mortal" ("manusyo martyah"), 32 the word 'man' would r e f e r not only to extension ( i . e . , to any a r b i t r a r i l y chosen man), as i t i s commonly understood to do, but also at the same time to inte n s i o n ( i . e . , to the u n i v e r s a l mariness). $ 1.17 This view of the NNs i s open to at l e a s t two objections: f i r s t , even though a word may have both intension and extension, i t i s not true that i t has both of them i n each of i t s uses. In some of i t s uses, i t may have int e n s i o n alone, and i n some others, extension alone (cf Carnap 1956:100-102, 106-11). This i s indeed i n d i c a t e d by what the NNs them-selves say elsewhere. For instance, i n gi v i n g a semantic analysis of the sentence, "Man i s mortal", they say that the word 'mortal' ('martya') names a q u a l i f i e r which i s i n v a r i a b l y regarded as a property (mortality, i n t h i s case) ($$ 2.22, 2.27-28). That i s , i t has only intension. S i m i l a r -l y , the NNs also say that the word 'man' has only extension, though t h e i r This i s true not only of the NNs, but also, in effect, of the kevala-ja.ti-va.dins and kevala-vyakti-vadins. The kevala-ja.ti-va.dins hold that intension alone i s the (primary) meaning of a word, but allow extension as a secondary meaning ( i . e . , by 'imp l i c a t i o n ' (laksana, aksepa)). Likewise, the kevala-vyakti-vadins hold that the (primary) meaning i s extension alone, but allow i n t e n s i o n as a secondary meaning. Thus, a l l the three schools d i f f e r only i n emphasis as to what constitutes meaning, and accept the same semantic model ( i . e . , i n terms of q u a l i f i e r and q u a l i f i c a n d ) f o r analysing sentences. See Athalye:334-37. 32 Even though I use the expressions 'refer to', 'express', e tc., rather l o o s e l y , i t should be noted that f o r the NNs the r e l a t i o n of a word to i t s meaning (artha) i s almost always (but not always) the naming r e l a t i o n . 48 view of what t h i s extension i s creates d i f f i c u l t i e s . There i s , thus, 33 some i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t i n the NNs' semantic views. Second, the Nn view i s appl i c a b l e only to general words, and i s not comprehensive enough to account f o r other words, i n p a r t i c u l a r f o r si n g u l a r terms. An abstract s i n g u l a r term l i k e 'cowness* Cgotva') names a property, namely, cowness, and thus has only i n t e n s i o n . I t can by no means be sa i d to r e f e r to any p a r t i c u l a r cow (or the class of cows). A concrete general term l i k e 'mortal', on the other hand, r e f e r s to any a r b i t r a r y member of the class of mortals, but cannot be s a i d to name any-thing, though as remarked above, the NNs think that i t names the property, movtaiity. A word can have int e n s i o n without naming anything. Further, a concrete s i n g u l a r term (e.g., 'Devadatta', 'the man i n the white garment' ($ 2.26)) cannot be sa i d to have i n t e n s i o n . For, accord-i n g to the NNs, singleness of an e n t i t y (vyakter dbhedhdh.) i s an 'impediment to universalhood 1 (jati-badhaka) (SM 8; Athalye:92; I n g a l l s 1951:42 fn 49). In other words, there can be no u n i v e r s a l corresponding to concrete singu-35 36 l a r terms, and hence no intension (cp M a t i l a l 1968a:119). 33 See $$ 2.28-29 f o r further d e t a i l s . 34 This shows that the NNs did not d i s t i n g u i s h between abstract s i n g u l a r terms and concrete general terms. See Quine 1959:205. 35 From t h i s , I think that i t i s leg i t i m a t e to i n f e r ( i n exten-s i o n a l terms) that the NNs did not recognise u n i t - c l a s s e s . A l s o , t h e i r theory of unexampled terms ($$ 2.8-9) implies that they did not allow the n u l l - c l a s s or the n u l l - t h i n g . See fns 3.36 and 6.5. 36 Terms (whether s i n g u l a r or general) expressing properties that have no instances ( i . e . , unexampled terms) co n s t i t u t e a s p e c i a l category, and present s p e c i a l problems ($ 2.8-9). 49 These objections a r i s e mainly because the NNs, as also the other p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the controversy, did not d i s t i n g u i s h between 37 inten s i o n and extension (or, sense and reference). The f a i l u r e to make the d i s t i n c t i o n l e d them, as i t has led many western philosophers 38 i n t o rather serious d i f f i c u l t i e s . $ 1.18 I t was noticed e a r l i e r ($ 1.6) that universals are, according to the NNs, abstract and independently e x i s t i n g e n t i t i e s ; and t h i s evidence was used i n showing that cognitions ( i . e . , senses of sentences) are, f o r the NNs, o n t o l o g i c a l l y independent e n t i t i e s . The same evidence even more c l e a r l y shows that senses of even words and phrases are, f o r the NNs, o n t o l o g i c a l l y independent. For, the sense (or intension) of a word i s simply the u n i v e r s a l corresponding to i t , and universals are o n t o l o g i c a l l y independent. The sense of the word 'horse', f o r instance, i s , according to the NNs, the u n i v e r s a l hovseness. I t occurs i n a l l the horses, and yet i s d i s t i n c t from them: unlike the i n d i v i d u a l horses, i t does not come i n t o , or pass out of, being. $ 1.19 For the NNs then, as f o r Frege, word-meanings as w e l l as sentence-meanings are o n t o l o g i c a l l y independent of language. Though independent This does not mean that the distinction between sense and reference was not known in the Indian tradition as a whole. Bhartrhari, for instance, distinguishes between buddhyartha or sabdartha (sense) and Vastvartha (reference), even though unlike the NNs (and Frege) he does not accept the ontological independence of sense (Aklujkar 1970a:98-101). There is also some evidence that the distinction was known even earlier, as early as 1st century A.D., to Sahara, the earliest available commenta-tor on the Mimamsa-sutra (Aklujkar 1970b:n 15). 38 For a discussion of the sort of d i f f i c u l t i e s that can arise from a failure to make the distinction, see Quine 1961:1-19. 50 of any expressions, they are generally associated with, and are known to us through, expressions. The independence of word-meanings from t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c vehicles i s also brought out by the Nyaya notion of visesa ( p a r t i c u l a r i t y , ultimate d i f f e r e n c e ) . A visesa i s supposed to be an e n t i t y responsible for d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g atoms (the ultimate con-s t i t u e n t s of the world) from one another. Yet no visesa can have a name: one does not know what an atom ( i n the Nyaya sense) i s l i k e . I t should be emphasised, however, that the s i m i l a r i t y of the NNs' approach to meanings to that of Frege regarding t h e i r o n t o l o g i c a l status should not be pressed too f a r . I t should not be taken to suggest that the NNs also held other Fregean views. $1.20 As to how a word comes to have i t s meaning (sakti; see 1.15), 39 the NNs say that i t i s a matter of convention, d i v i n e or human. While the r e a l i s a t i o n by the NNs that meaning i s a matter of convention was an important i n s i g h t , i t had i t s l i m i t a t i o n s : a d i v i n e convention hardly makes sense, and even where human convention was allowed, i t was l i m i t e d only to some words l i k e proper names (Athalye:333; SM 81). The NNs d i d not see that the meanings of atl words are conventional, although owing 39 The old Naiyayikas a t t r i b u t e d this convention only to God's w i l l , but the NNs maintained that i t could also be due to human w i l l : sa (=sakti) cdsmaaahabdad ayam artho boddhavya itisvareaoha-rupa. . . . navy as tu isvaveccha na saktih kintv icohaiva. . . . "And i t (=sakti) i s of the form of God's w i l l that from t h i s word t h i s meaning i s to be understood. . . . The moderns, how-ever, hold that sakti i s not God's w i l l but any w i l l whatever . . ." SM 81, (cf TD 59; Athalye:333). 51 to their interconnections i n an immensely complicated system of language, their conventional character may not be apparent. The conventionalism of the NNs was opposed to the naturalism of the Mimamsakas in this respect. The latter held that "sakti is natural 40 - -to, or inherent i n , the words themselves. By this what the Mimamsakas presumably meant is that one cannot explain exactly how words came to have their meaning; that as far as our knowledge goes, they have always had their meaning, and that their meaningfulness cannot be traced to any 41 human origin. They could not have meant that a sign or sound has some innate or natural quality in virtue of which i t comes to be assigned a certain meaning. If this were so, the same sign or sound would per-manently have the same meaning, and there would not be any diversity of languages. Even within the same language there would not be any change in the meaning of words. The naturalism of the Mimamsakas is perhaps due to their belief in the eternity of the Vedas. On such a belief, the same (Vedic) words would always have the same meaning. The Mimamsa naturalism (or the doctrine of autpattika sabddrtha-sambandha) is also shared in essentials by grammarians l i k e Bhartrhari. The latter called i t 'anddi-siddha sabddrtha-sambandha' (Aklujkar 1970a: 105-107; 1970b:n 15). ^autpattikas tu sabdasydrthena sambandhah (Mlmamsd-sutra 1.1.5, cited i n Raja 1963:20). 41 Or could i t be that they were trying to say that genetic accounts of how words come to have meanings are not a necessary adjunct to semantics? 52 $1.21 In giving semantic c r i t e r i a for determining what a word i s ($ 1.15), the NNs differed not only from grammarians l i k e Panini, but also from their own founder, Gautama, both of whom gave syntactic c r i t e r i a : both said that a word is any string having an inflection at 42 the end (Matilal 1966:379). Such syntactic c r i t e r i a satisfy the condition of descriptive adequacy, and hold, of course, only for highly inflected languages like Sanskrit, in which every word has either a 43 conjugational or declensional (nominal) inflection. For a language like English where not a l l words have inflections, either exclusively semantic c r i t e r i a or syntactic c r i t e r i a of a less interesting sort (such as that of being on a l i s t ) would be necessary. When Gautama and grammarians like Panini claimed to give syntactic c r i t e r i a for wordhood, what they had i n mind was not just the t r i v i a l property of being in a certain l i s t of strings of symbols. Such a l i s t was, no doubt, presupposed e x p l i c i t l y or implicitly in that i t con-stituted the domain for their whole enterprise. Given such a domain, these thinkers were looking for a property or properties that would describe exactly that domain. The l i s t presupposed was, of course, not arbitrary; i t was determined by a natural (then living) language, namely, Sanskrit. It contained only and a l l Sanskrit words. It i s this fact t<~a-t 42 te (=varnah) vibhaktyantah padam (NS 2.2.60). • • • sup-tin antam padam (Panini-siitra 1.4.14). 43 The case of particles, indeclinables, etc., is accounted for by means of the notion of zero-occurrence (Matilal 1966:379). 53 makes t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s valuable: they meet the cond i t i o n of d e s c r i p t i v e adequacy so f a r as Sanskrit i s concerned. The c r i t e r i a offered by these thinkers, then, are s y n t a c t i c i n a more i n t e r e s t i n g sense than those that are merely i n terms of a l i s t . In t h i s more i n t e r e s t i n g sense, s y n t a c t i c c r i t e r i a are not possible f o r every language. But i n the le s s i n t e r e s t -ing sense of being i n terms of a l i s t , they are p o s s i b l e f o r every language. It i s important to d i s t i n g u i s h i n t h i s regard between the two questions: (a) What i s i t to be a word of a p a r t i c u l a r language Ll and (b) What i s i t to be a word (in general or i n any language)? A s y n t a c t i c d e f i n i t i o n (at l e a s t i n the l e s s i n t e r e s t i n g sense) i s po s s i b l e only i f a word i s understood as i n question (a). For, any p a r t i c u l a r language has only a f i n i t e vocabulary at any given time, and to say that a word of that language i s anything that occurs as a member of that vocabulary i s indeed to give a s t r u c t u r a l d e f i n i t i o n . I f a word i s understood as i n (b), a s y n t a c t i c d e f i n i t i o n even i n the l e s s i n t e r e s t i n g sense i s not p o s s i b l e f o r every language: i t would involve the impossible task of l i s t i n g a l l words of a l l the i n f i n i t e number of languages, ac t u a l or p o s s i b l e . Why did the NNs give a semantic d e f i n i t i o n of a word, when a good s y n t a c t i c d e f i n i t i o n was already given by Gautama? I t i s po s s i b l e that they thought the two d e f i n i t i o n s were equally good, and a r b i t r a r i l y chose the semantic d e f i n i t i o n . But i t i s also p o s s i b l e that they thought the founder's d e f i n i t i o n to be inadequate f o r two conceivable reasons. F i r s t , they might not have r e a l i s e d that that d e f i n i t i o n presupposed a l i s t . 54 Without such a presupposition, that d e f i n i t i o n would allow too much: any nonsensical concatenation of the Sanskrit alphabet would also count as a word, i f i t had one of the i n f l e c t i o n s ( a l l of which are l i s t e d ) . A semantic d e f i n i t i o n would avoid such a d i f f i c u l t y . But a s y n t a c t i c d e f i n i t i o n would equally avoid the d i f f i c u l t y i f a p r i o r l i s t of s t r i n g s i s granted as the universe of discourse. Second, even though they did r e a l i s e that Gautama's d e f i n i t i o n presupposed a l i s t , they might have r i g h t l y reasoned that once a l i s t i s a v a i l a b l e , f u r t h e r s y n t a c t i c charac-t e r i s a t i o n of the items on the l i s t , however i n t e r e s t i n g and us e f u l i n p r a c t i c e , i s superfluous i n p r i n c i p l e so f a r as the d e f i n i t i o n of a word i s concerned. A t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound s y n t a c t i c d e f i n i t i o n i s already obtained when a l i s t i s prepared. CHAPTER I I COGNITION AND SENTENCE (II) $ 2 . 1 Although semantic c r i t e r i a are, according to the NNs, relevant for words ($$ 1.15, 1.21), they are not f o r a sentence defined as any c l u s t e r of words ($ 1.13). S i m i l a r l y , s y n t a c t i c considerations ( i n so f a r as syntax r e f e r s to the i n t e r n a l structure of a sentence) also are not relevant to a sentence conceived i n t h i s very broad sense. This, as was noticed e a r l i e r ($ 1.13) i s an absurd s i t u a t i o n , and the NNs avoid i t by d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between an adequate sentence (pramana-vdkya) and an inadequate sentence (apramana-vakya). They s p e c i f y four c r i t e r i a that an adequate sentence must s a t i s f y , namely, expectancy (akahksa)3 competency (yogyata.)3 proximity (asatti3 samnidhi) 3 and (speaker's) i n t e n -t i o n (tatparya). Together, these c r i t e r i a are designed to set apart s y n t a c t i c a l l y and semantically sound (but not n e c e s s a r i l y true) sentences from the r e s t . Thus, a sentence i s adequate i f and only i f i t meets these ( e s p e c i a l l y the f i r s t three) c r i t e r i a ' ' i f and only i f i t i s s y n t a c t i c a l l y 1 vakyam dvividham pramana-vdkyam apramdna-vakyam ceti. tatra pramana-vdkyam dkdnksd-yogyatd-samnidhimatam padanam sarrruhah. . . . apramdna-vakyam tu akdnksadi-rahitam vakyam. "A sentence i s of two kinds, adequate and inadequate. An adequate sentence i s a group of words which have expectancy, competency and prox-imity. . . . An inadequate sentence i s one which lacks expectancy, etc. NK s.v. vakyam. akdnksadi-rah-itam vakyam apramanam. "A sentence which lacks akahksa3 and semantically sound, but not necessarily true. These c r i t e r i a of an adequate sentence are variously described— as requirements (Brough 1953:163), as conditions (Raja 1962:145, 149, 156), and as c r i t e r i a or properties (Matilal 1966:384). I shall use these expressions indifferently in talking about them, since i t makes no significant difference which one I use. $2.2 Of these four requirements, expectancy (akahksa.) is a syntactic requirement and is alone said to be of real l i n g u i s t i c importance (Brough 1953:163). At any rate, i t is agreed by a l l to be the most important. It is defined as the connection or association of a word with another such that the occurrence of the former without the latter is not enough to complete the syntactical structure of a sentence. Or more l i t e r a l l y , the association i s such that the occurrence of one word raises in the listener an expectation or desire for the occurrence of another. Unless the expectation is f u l f i l l e d , the structure of the etc. i s inadequate". TS 61. S t r i c t l y speaking, expectancy etc., belong to the components of a sentence, i t is only derivatively that they are said to belong to a sentence. To say, therefore, that a sentence has them is really to say that i t consists of elements which have them. 2 This i s another sense of the expressions 'pramana-vakya' and 'apramana-vakya'. One sense, namely, 'a true sentence' and 'a false sentence' was noted in fn 1.1Q. The word 'pramana' also means a means of knowledge ($$ 3.4-5). 57 3 containing sentence i s not complete. For example, i n the sentence, "Bring the cow" ("gam anaya") the use of the t r a n s i t i v e verb 'bring' i s s a i d to r a i s e an expectancy f o r the word 'cow' which serves as i t s grammatical object; i . e . , s t r u c t u r a l l y or s y n t a c t i c a l l y , a t r a n s i t i v e verb needs a grammatical object. One might think that such a s s o c i a t i o n between words i s merely p s y c h o l o g i c a l , a c c i d e n t a l l y formed i n the minds of p a r t i c u l a r language-users. However, what the Naiyayikas (and thinkers of other Indian schools as well) had i n mind was an ob j e c t i v e , i . e . , s y n t a c t i c a l r e l a t i o n deter-mining the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of a sentence. There i s no such r e l a t i o n between the words of the expression, "cow, horse, man, elephant" ("guar asvah puruso hasti" (TS 61)) which, though, i s t e c h n i c a l l y a sentence; but the sentence can never be le g i t i m a t e despite any p s y c h o l o g i c a l a s s o c i a -tions p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s might have formed between these words. $2.3 I t must be emphasised that what i s demanded by expectancy i s the completion of the grammatical form or structure of a sentence, not of i t s meaning. Even i f one replaces 'the cow' by ' t r i a n g u l a r i t y ' i n "Bring the cow", the r e s u l t i n g sentence "Bring t r i a n g u l a r i t y " w i l l s t i l l be 3 padasya padantara-vyatireka-prayuktdnvayanani^hdvakatvam akahksa. "Expectancy consists i n a word's not being s y n t a c t i c a l l y connected with the remaining words of a sentence owing to the absence of another word". TS 60. yat-padena viria yasyanvayananiibhavakata. bhavet dkdhksd. BP 84. This i s further expanded i n SM 84 as: yena padena vina yat-padasyanvayananubhavakatvam tena padena saha tasya akahksa. " I f a word x cannot become s y n t a c t i c a l l y connected with the rest of the sentence without another word y, then x has expectancy f o r y". 58 grammatical—i.e., w i l l have expectancy—though semantically speaking, i t w i l l be very odd. Expectancy i s thus a s y n t a c t i c requirement. This i s c l e a r from TS 60 and SM 84 (fn 2.3) where the word used i s not 'ortho.' ('meaning') but 'anvaya' and means sequence, or s t r u c t u r e . The s y n t a c t i c character of expectancy, despite i t s obvious importance, i s not f u l l y r e a l i s e d by, f o r example, Raja (1963:157) and B. Bhattacharya (1962:129) (among se v e r a l others) who take 'anvaya' as 'meaning' and regard expectancy as r e q u i r i n g completion of sense, rather than of s t r u c t u r e . Even M a t i l a l (1966:383-84), while b e l i e v i n g that expectancy i s a s y n t a c t i c property, yet c i t e s Gangesa's d e f i n i t i o n i n h i s support, which e i t h e r does not do i t s intended job ( i f M a t i l a l ' s t r a n s l a t i o n of i t i s c o r r e c t ) , or M a t i l a l ' s t r a n s l a t i o n of i t does not b r i n g out the s p i r i t of that d e f i n i t i o n . I am i n c l i n e d to b e l i e v e the l a t t e r . Gangesa's d e f i n i t i o n i s : yasya yena vina svarthanvayananubhavakatvam tasya tatpada sarmidhanam. M a t i l a l t r a n s l a t e s t h i s as, "The accompaniment of a s t r i n g x with another s t r i n g y i n such a way that x would not generate cognition of the meaning (sabdabodha or anvayabodha) unless accompanied by y" (^italics mine). Thus t r a n s l a t e d , Gangesa's d e f i n i t i o n a c t u a l l y becomes i n c o n s i s t e n t with M a t i l a l ' s point since i t makes expectancy a semantic- requirement by b r i n g -ing i n the meaning of the whole sentence (sabdabodha) ($ 2.18). A more preci s e t r a n s l a t i o n of i t would be, " I f the meaning of (a word) x cannot be construed without the presence of (another word) y, then having y near x i s expectancy". This t r a n s l a t i o n , l i k e the o r i g i n a l , also r e f e r s to meaning (svartha)but the meaning i s that of a word, not of the whole 59 sentence containing i t . With this limitation, i t is easy to see that the reference to meaning is inessential: what i s to be construed i s one word, not i t s meaning, with another. This i s indicated by the fact that in the latter half of the translation, only 'y' not 'the meaning of y' occurs. In TS 603 BP 84 and SM 84 (fn 2.3), there is no reference to meaning at a l l but only to syntactical connection (anvaya). If 'anvaya' i s taken as 'meaning', expectancy no longer remains a purely syntactical requirement as i t i s , I think, intended to be by the NNs. It would at least partly be semantic and would overlap with competency. $ 2.4 Syntax, as i t is understood today, has two functions: (a) charac-terisation of the grammatical structure of sentences actually belonging to the corpus of a given language; (b) generation of sentences which do not belong to the corpus (i.e., have not been uttered so far by any native speaker), and yet which have the same structure. The NNs were, perhaps, unaware of the second function. Nevertheless, i t i s interesting to note, with the second function i n mind, that the Nn notion of expectancy has some superficial similarity with a certain communication theoretic model for l i n g u i s t i c structure employing a f i n i t e state Markov process. This model is lik e a machine with a f i n i t e number of internal states. Each state i s designed to produce a sign. Given the i n i t i a l state, the machine automatically switches to the second, from the second to the third and so on, u n t i l i t stops at the f i n a l state. When i t runs through a l l i t s (finite number of) states, the result is a sequence of signs, which 60 i s a sentence. Now, the speaker of a language may be compared to such a machine. In producing a sentence, the speaker begins i n the i n i t i a l s t a t e , produces the f i r s t word of the sentence, thereby switching i n t o a second state which l i m i t s the choice of the second word, etc. Each s t a t e through which he passes repre-sents the grammatical r e s t r i c t i o n s that l i m i t the choice of the next word at t h i s point i n the utterance. (Chomsky 1957:20). I f the speaker i s conceived i n t h i s way, then the s i m i l a r i t y between the Markov process model and expectancy becomes apparent: i n both, given an i n i t i a l word, the need f o r a fur t h e r word i s created. This i s only a s u p e r f i c i a l s i m i l a r i t y , however. The divergences are too great. F i r s t , while the Markov process model determines the next word exactly, expectancy cannot. The next word a f t e r 'Bring' may be 'cow' or 'black' or 'broken-horned' and so f o r t h . There i s no automatic switching to the next word. Second, the Markov process model i s a f i n i t e s t a t e model, and can be c a l l e d a f i n i t e s t a t e grammar. The language i t produces i s a f i n i t e state language. As Chomsky has shown (1957:21-25), such a grammar i s i n a p p l i c a b l e to E n g l i s h i n p a r t i c u l a r s i n ce E n g l i s h i s not a f i n i t e s t ate language. I t i s not a p p l i c a b l e to Sanskrit e i t h e r , or presumably to any n a t u r a l language, f o r the same reason. Expectancy on the other hand i s a p p l i c a b l e to such languages. $ 2.5 Expectancy does not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y characterise the s y n t a c t i c requirement of an adequate sentence though the NNs thought i t does. I t i s not general enough to cover a l l grammatically sound sentences. For instance i n the sentence, 61 (1) ayam pato na raktah ("This c l o t h i s not red"), while the f i r s t word may be s a i d to arouse an expectancy f o r the second, n e i t h e r of them s i n g l y , nor both together, can be s a i d to arouse an expectancy f o r any or a l l of the r e s t . This i s so because, owing to the p e c u l i a r i t y of S a n s k r i t , the f i r s t two can, by themselves, c o n s t i t u t e a s y n t a c t i c a l l y (and semantically) sound sentence. So can the f i r s t 4 three. (It may be noted, however, that the Eng l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n of the above Sanskrit sentence does have expectancy). This d i f f i c u l t y cannot be overcome by saying that i t i s enough f o r a sentence to be adequate, i f at l e a s t one of i t s words has an expectancy f o r at l e a s t one other word; f o r , i n that case, even ungrammatical sentences l i k e "naro 'yam jalena" ("This i s a man with water") would also count as adequate. Nor can i t be overcome by saying that (1) i s not r e a l l y a s i n g l e (or simple) sentence,"* but a complex of sentences; or, using Nyaya terminology, that (1) lacks sentence-unity (eka-vakyata), and the conditions of adequacy apply to s i n g l e sentences, not to combinations of them. For, on any analysis (1) i s a s i n g l e sentence, although even the f i r s t two or the f i r s t three words can by themselves form a sentence . This i s f u r t h e r r e i n f o r c e d by the Nn view that a sentence i s one i f i t has only one chief In f a c t , any three of the four words constitutes an adequate sen-tence. So do also the f i r s t and the fourth, and the second and the fourth. ^ ' S i n g l e ' or 'simple' here means that a sentence does not have other sentences as i t s parts. In t h i s sense, even general sentences of the form " A l l men are mortal" and "Some men are honest" as w e l l as atomic sentences can be s a i d to be simple. The NNs do not d i s t i n g u i s h between atomic and general sentences (cf $$ 2.23, 2.26-2.31), and regard both as simple. 62 q u a l i f i c a n d . By t h i s c r i t e r i o n (1) does have sentence-unity. That the q u a l i f i e r i s negative does not a f f e c t the s i t u a t i o n , since f o r the Naiyayikas, the absence of a property i s i t s e l f a property, and i s p o s i t i v e i n character, l i k e any other property. Expectancy i s a necessary but not a s u f f i c i e n t condition of the adequacy of a sentence. The others, e s p e c i a l l y competency and proximity, also are equally necessary. $ 2.6 Competency i s defined as the f i t n e s s (or compa t i b i l i t y ) of the components of a sentence f o r mutual connection. What i s i n question i s sa i d to be the meanings of these components: there should not be any i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y or c o n f l i c t among them.^ The stock examples given i n t h i s regard are: (2) Qalena sir\cati (He) wets (the ground) with water. (3) agnina sifloati (He) wets (the ground) with f i r e . In (2), the two component words are sa i d to be compatible with regard to t h e i r meanings, and so have competency. But i n (3), they lack i t since the a c t i v i t y of wetting i s incompatible with f i r e . Though both (2) and 6 padarthe tatra tadvattd yogyatd parikirtitd. "The co m p a t i b i l i t y of the meaning of a word with that of another i s c a l l e d competency". BP 83. eka-paddrthe 'para-paddrtha-sambandho yogyatd. "The connection of the meaning of a word with that of another i s competency". SM 83. arthdbadho yogyatd. "Competency i s the non-contradiction of meaning". TS 60. 63 (3) are s y n t a c t i c a l l y sound, (2) alone i s semantically sound. Thus, competency i s a semantic requirement d i s t i n c t from expectancy which i s s y n t a c t i c . $2.7 What sor t of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y i s i t that i s involved i n the Nn notion of competency? Is i t l o g i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y or f a c t u a l impossi-b i l i t y ? Or, i s i t j u s t p l a i n f a c t u a l f a l s i t y ? I t i s c l e a r that, f o r the NNs, lack of competency does not mean f a c t u a l f a l s i t y . They d i s t i n g u i s h between true and f a l s e cognitions (fns 1.2, 3.9), and the same d i s t i n c t i o n of course c a r r i e s over to sentences ($$ 1.7; TS 59). A sentence must already be adequate (pramana-vakya) i n order to be f a l s e ; that i s , i t must have competency. But on the same reasoning, sentences expressing p h y s i c a l and l o g i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t i e s ought to have competency, since they are also f a l s i t i e s . Any d e f i n i t i o n of an adequate sentence, one would think, has the consequence that i f p i s adequate, so i s not-p. Yet i t i s not c l e a r whether the NNs would say that sentences expressing f a c t u a l or l o g i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t i e s have competency.^ Aklujkar thinks that the expressions 'pramana-vakya' and ' apramdna-vakya' mean, not adequate sentence and inadequate sentence, as I hold, but true sentence and non-true sentence. A non-true sentence includes, on h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , f a l s e ( l o g i c a l l y or otherwise) as w e l l as non-sensical sentences (which would be n e c e s s a r i l y ungrammatical). His reasons are: (1) Expectancy, competency, and proximity are discussed i n the broad context of true cognition (yatharthanubhava) (TS 36), and i n the immediate context of testimonial cognition (sdbda-j'rldna). Hence, they must r e f e r to a true sentence (sabda) only. (2) In the immediate context (TS 59) of the discussion of expectancy e t c . , (TS 61), the words 'apta' ('speaker of truth') and 'yathdrtha' ('true') occur. (3) The word 'pramdna' i s not found as ( e x p l i c i t l y ) r e f e r r i n g to sentences which are s y n t a c t i c a l l y and semantically sound but f a l s e . (4) In the discussion immediately following that of expectancy etc. , i t means true (TS 62, c i t e d 64 $ 2 . 8 The s i t u a t i o n i s complicated by the NNs' theory of unexampled (aprasiddha) properties and terms. A property i s s a i d to be unexampled i f i t has no instances, and a term i s s a i d to be unexampled (non-reffering, vacuous) i f i t names such a property (Ingalls 1951:34, 61, 81; M a t i l a l 1968a:17, 154-55). The examples c i t e d of such terms are 'barren woman's son' ('vandhya-suta')3 'rabbit's horn', ('sasa-srhga')3 'sky flower', ('gagana-kusuma')3 e t c . These are general terms without extension on the same l e v e l with 'unicorn', 'round square', 'green swan', etc . Though the NNs do not consider examples of s i n g u l a r terms without extension l i k e i n fn 1.10) and hence must have the same sense i n TS 61 a l s o . (5) Com-petency (yogyatd) which i s the immediate bone of contention here, i s defined as n o n - i n v a l i d a t i o n of artha (fn 2.6). Whether artha i s under-stood as reference (as i t more commonly i s by the NNs), or as sense, t h i s d e f i n i t i o n can only mean that a sentence having competency i s a true sentence. (6) The only known example of lack of competency ( i . e . , "agnind siflaati" "CHeD wets with f i r e " ) can be s a i d to be apramana (non-true) only on the ground that i t i s f a l s e ( i n the sense of being p h y s i c a l l y impossible). The following considerations show, I think, that Aklujkar i s not r i g h t : (1) The f a c t that the d i s c u s s i o n of expectancy etc., takes place i n the context of true, e s p e c i a l l y t e s t i m o n i a l , cognition does not mean that that discussion i s confined to true sentences only. The proper-t i e s expectancy e t c . , are e x p l i c i t l y defined quite generally as the determinants of the meaning of a sentence (vdkya, not sabda) (TS 60); and a sentence, unlike sabda i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a true sentence. I t i s defined j u s t i n the preceding verse (TS 59) as any c l u s t e r of words. The words 'dpta' 'yathartha' are used i n that verse i n r e l a t i o n , not to vakya, but to sabda. (2) The sentences used to i l l u s t r a t e expectancy etc . , are chosen a r b i t r a r i l y and are not s t i p u l a t e d to be true. In f a c t , expectancy i s generally considered to be a s y n t a c t i c property ($$ 2.2-3), and cannot be confined to true sentences only. This i s evident also from the f a c t that some examples of sentences having expectancy ( i . e . , "g'iiatam dnaya" "Bring a pot" (SM 84)) are i n the imperative mood, and cannot be s a i d to be e i t h e r true or f a l s e . Since expectancy, competency, and proximity s a i l i n the same boat (cp t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n i n TS 60), the l a s t two also cannot be confined to true sentences. (3) The NNs already have the t r u e - f a l s e (yathartha-ay athartha) d i s t i n c t i o n , but never say that a 65 'the present king of France', 'Pegasus', 'Phoenix', etc., they would presumably t r e a t them also as unexampled. The NNs consider i n c l u s i o n of aprasiddha terms as a flaw i n l o g i c a l reasoning and view the g sentences containing them with disfavour. Again, though t h e i r examples sentence lacks competency merely on the ground that i t i s f a l s e . In f a c t , a l l schools of Indian philosophy (inc l u d i n g Nn) keep repeating over the centuries the one example, namely, "He wets with f i r e " . This shows, I think, that they were i n possession of an i n t e r e s t i n g , but d i f f i c u l t , idea, and were unable to formulate i t c l e a r l y . Aklujkar's view (according to which any f a l s e sentence would serve to i l l u s t r a t e lack of competency) renders the notion of competency r e l a t i v e l y t r i v i a l , and leaves unexplained the i n t r i g u i n g f a c t of the absence of other examples. (4) Secondary sources without exception use 'competency' so as to apply to f a l s e sentences as w e l l as to true ones. See, f o r instance, Athalye:342; Keith 1921:163; Brough 1953:163; Chatterjee 1950:337-38; Datta 1960:310-12; Bhattacarya 1962:128, 139-53; Raja 1963:164-66; M a t i l a l 1966:383; 1968a:19-20. A c t u a l l y , Raja (1963:165) suggests that, according to Kumarilabhatta (7th century A.D.), a Mimamsaka, a sentence could be f a l s e , and yet nave competency. Since expectancy e t c . , were f i r s t promulgated by the Mimamsakas, and were l a t e r taken over by other schools only with s l i g h t changes (Raja 1963:156), i t i s reasonable to suppose that the NNs also shared Kumarilabhatta's view i n t h i s respect. (5) The d e f i n i t i o n of competency (as arthabdaha, or as padarthe tatra tadvatta (fn 2.6)) i s f l e x i b l e enough to accommodate my view, and does not p a r t i c u l a r l y favour Aklujkar's. My conclusion, then, i s that when a sentence (vakya) i s s a i d to be pramana on the ground that it has the properties, expectancy, etc., i t cannot mean true, but adequate i n my sense. Even i f the NNs do not e x p l i c i t l y say that a f a l s e sentence having expectancy e t c . , can be pramana, t h e i r use of 'pramana' and 'apramana' i n connection with expectancy etc., implies that i t can be. I t i s true that i n the next verse (TS 62), the word 'pramana' means true. But such ambiguities and i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s , a f t e r a l l , cannot be ruled out i n t r a d i t i o n a l writings (see fn 2.2). On another point of ambiguity, see fn 3.23. g "Such aprasiddha terms were always viewed as suspect i n a sy s t e -matic discourse. I f they were parts of a sentence dealing with some l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n or the l i k e , the whole sentence was ruled out to be aprasiddha by Nyaya" ( M a t i l a l 1968a:17 fn 34, cf 155; cf Goekoop 1967: 18; Staal 1962b:641). 66 are compound words, the NNs would perhaps regard even s i n g l e words without extension as unexampled (cp M a t i l a l 1968a:154-55). I t i s not c l e a r from the Nn t e x t s whether the unexampled terms are considered to l a c k i n t e n s i o n as w e l l as e x t e n s i o n . However, modern w r i t e r s on Nyaya tend to regard them as meaningless or l a c k i n g competency. Brough (1953:163) remarks, "the second f a c t o r yogyata, r e a l l y i n v o l v e d a judgement on . . . the sense or nonsense of a sentence. . . . Into t h i s category a l s o f a l l such l o g i c a l puzzles as the 'round square' . . . ". Raja (1963:165) and M a t i l a l (1968a:20) make a d i s t i n c t i o n between two s o r t s of unexampled terms, namely, those expressing i n c o n c e i v a b l e combina-t i o n s (e.g., 'a barren woman's son') and those expressing conceivable combinations (e.g., 'a r a b b i t ' s horn'). They h o l d that i t i s the former th a t l a c k competency, and thereby suggest (Raja e x p l i c i t l y , M a t i l a l im-p l i c i t l y ) t hat the l a t t e r do have i t . However, as f a r as I know, there i s no t e x t u a l evidence f o r t h i s t w o -fold d i s t i n c t i o n of unexampled terms, (and Raja and M a t i l a l do not c i t e any). In f a c t , P o t t e r (1963:66), McDermott (1969:54 f n 18), and Mohanty (1971:199) ho l d that no such d i s -t i n c t i o n was made i n Indian philosophy. I f the NNs d i d indeed t r e a t unexampled terms as meaningless, then a l l of them must be such. $ 2.9 That an unexampled term l a c k s competency (or i s meaningless) can be i n t e r p r e t e d i n two ways. I t can be taken to mean e i t h e r (a) that the compound term as a whole i s incompatible w i t h the r e l e v a n t components of any sentence i n which i t might occur; or (b) that i t s elements, which, u n l i k e t h e i r combinations, might s e p a r a t e l y have e x t e n s i o n , are mutually in c o m p a t i b l e . On e i t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the assumption that unexampled 67 terms are meaningless leads to unacceptable consequences. To begin with i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (a), i f an unexampled term lacks competency then any sentence containing i t must a l s o , as competency has been defined, lack i t (fn 2.8). So, not only sentences l i k e "There are r a b b i t s ' horns" and "sons of barren women e x i s t " , but also t h e i r opposites, "There are no r a b b i t s ' horns" and "Sons of barren women do not e x i s t " would have to be meaningless. Yet these l a t t e r are generally regarded as true, and there i s no reason to b e l i e v e that the NNs would have regarded them d i f f e r e n t l y . As true sentences, they would, f o r the NNs, count as seman-t i c a l l y sound. The same i s true, mutatis mutandis, of sentences containing unexampled terms expressing p h y s i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t i e s , e.g., "There are no sky flowers". Thus, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (a) leads to an i n t e r n a l inconsistency. This inconsistency i s even worse i n the case of i n t e r p r e -t a t i o n (b). On that i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , not only a l l those sentences i n which an unexampled term as a whole occurs, but also a l l those i n which i t s elements separately occur have to be counted as meaningless. Sentences l i k e "Rabbits have horns", "Rabbits do not have horns", "Barren women have sons", "Barren women have no sons" have a l l to count as meaningless. Yet, the NNs would regard the f i r s t and t h i r d as f a l s e and the second and fourth as true, though they would not be able to d i s t i n g u i s h the type of tr u t h or f a l s i t y involved. The f i r s t two are f a c t u a l . The l a s t two are l o g i c a l ; the t h i r d reduces to an outright c o n t r a d i c t i o n , and the fourth to a t r i v i a l i t y i f synonyms are replaced by synonyms. For the NNs, thus, a l l the four sentences would be semantically sound. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n (b) thus, leads to a more g l a r i n g c o n t r a d i c t i o n . Yet, such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 68 i s suggested by the fac t that unexampled terms are sa i d (e.g., by M a t i l a l 1968a:20; Brough 1953:163) to lack competency independent of t h e i r p o s s i b l e occurrence i n sentences. Because of these considerations, and i n the absence of d e f i n i t e t e x t u a l evidence, I f e e l that i t i s not f a i r to the NNs to say that they regarded unexampled terms as meaningless or as la c k i n g competency. The view that unexampled terms, whether l o g i c a l contradictions or other terms without extension, are meaningless, very probably stems from the mistaken b e l i e f that meaning i s the same as naming. That the two are very d i f f e r e n t i s now common knowledge, thanks to Frege and Quine, among others. $2.10 I f the NNs did regard unexampled terms as meaningful (or as having competency), i t follows that lack of competency does not mean f a c t u a l f a l s i t y , f a c t u a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y or l o g i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y . There i s a lso some fur t h e r , but i n d i r e c t , evidence f o r saying that i t does not mean any of these. Salikanatha (ca 1000 A.D.) holds that semantic 9 i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y or lack of competency i s to be known from experience. This appeal to experience, perhaps, h i n t s that the NNs, despite t h e i r 9 Kim punar idem yogyatvam noma? yat sambandharhatvam. sarnbandharham iti katham jTidyate? sambandhitvena drstatvat. "Again, what i s t h i s that i s c a l l e d competency? It i s f i t n e s s f o r (mutual) connec-t i o n . How i s i t known that (something) i s f i t f o r connection? From experience of connectedness". From Vakyarthamdtvkc-vvtti i n Prakarana-paHcikdj c i t e d i n F^aja 1963:164 fn 2. Salikanatha, i s a Mimamsaka, not an NN. But i t i s e s s e n t i a l l y an Nn concept that he expounds i n these l i n e s . 69 frequent confusion between intension and extension, had moments of r e l a t i v e c l a r i t y when they were vaguely aware of the d i s t i n c t i o n between the two. Appeal to experience i s not needed i n matters of i n t e n s i o n , ^ but i s needed i n s e t t l i n g matters of extension. One knows whether the morning s t a r i s the same as the morning s t a r a priori; but needs exper-ience to know that the morning s t a r i s the same as the evening star.*''' The Nyaya appeal to experience would i n d i c a t e that they were concerned with extension rather than with in t e n s i o n i n t h e i r account of competency. Yet, as noticed above ($$ 2.7, 2.9), t h i s appeal i s not the sort of appeal needed to s e t t l e question of f a c t u a l t r u t h or f a l s i t y . What s o r t i s i t then? $ 2.11 I think the so r t of i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y that the NNs have i n mind when they t a l k about the lack of competency i s what i s c a l l e d f o l lowing Ryle, a category-cross or a category-mistake. Ryle says (1938:75-79) that a category-mistake i s an absurdity rather than l i t e r a l nonsense, since an absurdity i s d i f f e r e n t from a mere sound (or sign) without sense. I t i s a remark that i s somehow out of place when i t s l i t e r a l meaning i s taken s e r i o u s l y . When one of two expressions cannot replace the other without turning the containing sentences i n t o an absurdity, one has a case of category-difference. The two expressions i n question are There i s , of course, the proviso that one has u l t i m a t e l y to determine the meanings of words by observing the verbal behavior of the language-users concerned. **To say, therefore, that experience i s i r r e l e v a n t f o r questions of meaning i s not to say that i t i s i r r e l e v a n t to semantic questions i n general. said to belong to two different categories, in the sense that the objects they refer to belong to distinct categories (Thompson 1967:46). To take an example of a category-mistake (due in part to Ryle 1938: 75-76), when one replaces 'the landlord' by 'Saturday1 in "The landlord is i n bed", the result "Saturday is in bed" is an absurdity. Other instances of category-mistakes are, "Procrastination drinks quadrupli-cit y " , "Green ideas sleep furiously", "Dead linguists smoke buildings", "Virtue i s blue" and so on. Saturday i s not the sort of thing that can sleep, while the landlord i s ; so they belong to different types or cate-gories. It also seems to follow from what Ryle says that the actual components of a sentence embodying a category mistake, namely, 'Saturday' and 'bed' belong to different categories. So do 'virtue' and 'blue', 'green' and 'sleep', etc. A category-mistake results i f terms (and thereby the things signified by them) belonging to different categories are coupled. Ryle insists that category-mistakes are mistakes concerning primarily extra-linguistic entities rather than expressions. He says (1938:77), " . . . absurdities result from the improper coupling not of expressions but of what the expressions signify, though coupling and mis-coupling of them is effected by operating upon their expressions". This passage seems to show that for Ryle a category-mistake has to do with the incompatibility of extensions of terms, rather than with their intensions. And this i s precisely what Salikanatha's expression 'drs^atvat' seems to convey. The sentence, "He wets with f i r e " expresses a category-mistake precisely because i t combines expressions of 71 incompatible extensions. F i r e and the a c t i v i t y of wetting belong to t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t types. The i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of extensions i s known, i n a sense, from experience, but an i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of intensions i s known independently of experience. True, the Nn d e f i n i t i o n s of com-petency employ the notion of artha ( l i t . 'meaning') but 'artha' f o r the NNs can mean eit h e r i n t e n s i o n or extension ($ 1.16-17). In the present context 'artha' i s b e t t e r taken as 'extension' because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s , already noticed, of taking i t as 'intension'. Besides, there i s a sense i n which a sentence containing a category-mistake can be s a i d to lack meaning: the categories are s a i d to set l i m i t s to cognitive meaning. Thus, Thompson (1967:46) observes, P h i l o s o p h i c a l categories are c l a s s e s , genera or types supposed to mark necessary d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n our conceptual scheme, d i v i s i o n s that we must recognise i f we are to make l i t e r a l sense i n our discourse about the world. $ 2.12 The view that unexampled terms are meaningful means that contra-d i c t o r y terms are meaningful. Even i f one wanted to regard the l a t t e r as meaningless, one would have to grant that t h e i r meaninglessness i s due to an i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y of intensions rather than of the categories s i g n i f i e d by i t s component words. The words, 'round' and 'square' do not s i g n i f y e n t i t i e s belonging to d i f f e r e n t categories: the same sor t of things can be e i t h e r round or square, though not both. Rather, t h e i r sense i s such that they cannot go together. Thus, even on the meaning-lessness of contradictory terms, there would s t i l l be a d i s t i n c t i o n between them and expressions expressing category-mistakes. The Nn notion of yogyata forbids only the l a t t e r (cp $2.8). 72 $2.13 The theory of categories has, of course, i t s own d i f f i c u l t i e s , the c h i e f one being that there i s no c r i t e r i o n or i d e n t i f y i n g , or at l e a s t d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g , a category. Smart (1953) f o r example, has argued that on Ryle's t e s t of category-difference, almost anything (and the corresponding expression) can be assigned to a d i f f e r e n t category. "The seat of the chair i s hard" r e s u l t s i n an absurdity when 'chair' i s replaced by 'table'. Should we not then say that chairs and tables belong to d i f f e r e n t categories? S i m i l a r l y , integers which are generally regarded as belonging to the same type, can be shown on Ryle's t e s t to belong to d i f f e r e n t types (categories). S i m i l a r remarks are made by Anscombe (Anscombe & Geach 1963:15). However, my purpose i s not to examine the adequacy of the theory of categories, but to point out that i n t h e i r theory of competency, the NNs were t r y i n g to do the same s o r t of thing that Ryle was t r y i n g to do, whatever exactly that was. $ 2.14 Proximity i s the t h i r d requirement of an adequate sentence, and i s defined as the con t i g u i t y (temporal when uttered, s p a t i a l when 12 written) between words. I t i s s a i d , for instance, that the words 'gam' ('cow'),'anaya' ('bring') e t c . , when uttered at i n t e r v a l s of three 12 sarmidhanam tu padasyasattir ucyate. "Proximity i s the c o n t i g u i t y of"a word"! BP 83. padanam avilambenoccaranarn sarnnidhih. "Proximity i s the utterance of words without an i n t e r v a l " . TS 60. The second d e f i n i t i o n , l i t e r a l l y speaking, applies only to uttered sentences, but i s obviously intended to cover w r i t t e n sentences as w e l l . Annambhatta i s here following the early Indian view that w r i t t e n language i s derived from the spoken language, that the l a t t e r enjoys primacy, and that any remark that applies to the l a t t e r applies ipso facto to the former. 73 hours each cannot constituate an adequate sentence (TS 61). However, thus understood, proximity ceases to be a condition of an adequate sentence, and becomes a condition of any sentence at a l l . For, a sentence i s defined as any group of words ($ 1.13), and to form a group, words must already s a t i s f y the condition of proximity. The NNs do not seem to be aware of th i s d i f f i c u l t y , but they do also i n t e r p r e t proximity i n another way which avoids t h i s d i f f i c u l t y , and i s much more i n t e r e s t i n g . On t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the condition of proximity forbids the s p a t i a l or temporal separation of the components of a sentence by the i n t e r v e n t i o n of i r r e l e v a n t words. For instance, the word-complex, "giviv bhuktam agniman devadattena" ("The h i l l has been eaten has f i r e by Devadatta" SM 83) i s sai d to lack proximity, because the words 'girir' ( ' h i l l ' ) and 'agniman' ('has f i r e ' ) are separated by the i r r e l e v a n t word 'bhuktam' ('has been eaten'), and so are the words 'bhuktam' and 'devadattena' ('by Devadatta') by 'agniman'. These i r r e l e v a n t i n t e r v e n t i o n s are avoided by reordering the complex thus: "giviv agniman bhuktam devadattena" ("The h i l l has f i r e . I t has been eaten by Devadatta"). Thus reordered, the complex consists of two sentences each of which has proximity, and i s quite i n order. Understood i n t h i s second way, proximity i s indeed a c r i t e r i o n of the adequacy of sentences, and belongs only to those sentences which have also expectancy and competency. It i s also an i n d i r e c t attempt at poi n t i n g out the necessity of some sort of word-order, e s p e c i a l l y i n shorter sentences of Sanskrit which, s t r i c t l y speaking ( i . e . , from a grammatical stand-point), have no r i g i d order (Apte 1963:263-64; M a t i l a l 1968a:13, 21; Sta a l 1967:1-2, 60-61). 74 What kind of a requirement i s proximity? Brough (1953:163) says that i t i s not a l i n g u i s t i c condition. For him only expectancy i s a l i n g u i s t i c condition. He seems to r u l e out semantic considerations as being n o n - l i n g u i s t i c . However, so f a r as proximity i s understood as the c o n t i g u i t y of words of relevant meanings, i t i s at l e a s t p a r t l y semantic (and p a r t l y s y n t a c t i c i n so f a r as i t r e f e r s to the ordering of words). And i t would be a l i n g u i s t i c condition i n the sense that word-meanings are associated with words. $2.15 Some NNs l i k e Visvanatha add i n t e n t i o n (tdtparya) as a fourth requirement f o r the adequacy of a sentence. I t i s defined as the d e s i r e 13 (intention) of the speaker. I t i s s a i d to be necessary f o r deciding between two (or more) po s s i b l e meanings of a sentence. The sentence "saindhavam dnaya" can mean e i t h e r "Bring s a l t " or "Bring a horse", and i t i s the speaker's i n t e n t i o n that enables one to choose the appropriate sense under the given c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ^ $ 2.16 I t i s object ionable to lay down i n t e n t i o n as a f u r t h e r requirement f o r the adequacy of a sentence for at l e a s t two reasons. F i r s t , i t i s 13 vaktur icchd tu tdtparyam parikirtitam (BP 84). Annambhatta al s o , though he does not mention i n t e n t i o n along with the other three properties i n TS 60, does ta l k of i t while d i s c u s s i n g laksand ( d e r i v a t i v e meaning). He says i n TD 59, tat-pratiticchayoccaritatvam tdtparyam. tdtparya-jTLdnam ca vakydrtha-jfldne hetuh. "Being uttered with the desire f o r that (given) meaning i s i n t e n t i o n . And the cognition of i n t e n t i o n i s a cause i n understanding the meaning of a sentence". 14 This example i s a l s o given by the Sanskrit grammarians to i l l u s t r a t e the importance of context. 75 required only to c l a r i f y an ambiguous sentence. But an ambiguous sentence i s already both s y n t a c t i c a l l y and semantically sound. In so f a r as the purpose behind d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between adequate and inadequate sentences i s to separate ungrammatical and meaningless expressions from grammatical and meaningful ones, an ambiguous sentence must be regarded as adequate despite i t s defect of ambiguity and i r r e s p e c t i v e of what the speaker's i n t e n t i o n i s . I t would be strange to declare a sentence as meaningless (or semantically unsound) on the ground that i t has more than one meaning. Second, i n t e n t i o n i s a pragmatic requirement i n the sense that i t r e f e r s to the speaker's a t t i t u d e to a sentence. Despite the obvious importance of pragmatic considerations elsewhere (e.g., i n moral d i s -course), they are best ignored i n a semantic or s y n t a c t i c analysis of language aimed at an understanding of l o g i c a l theory (cf Carnap 1942:13). Such considerations may be necessary i n i n i t i a l l y determining the semantic and s y n t a c t i c features of a language as a whole (or even of a given expression), but once these features are discovered, i t i s p r e f e r -able not to r e f e r to the users of a language. To do so would be to predicate of an utterance what i s true only of the u t t e r e r . The NNs themselves seem to appreciate considerations of t h i s s o r t , s i nce they do not always require the i n c l u s i o n of i n t e n t i o n as a condition of adequacy. But they do c o n s i s t e n t l y require the i n c l u s i o n of the other three con-d i t i o n s . This i s not to deny that ambiguity i s , i n a c e r t a i n sense, a semantic notion, but only that that sense i s relevant i n the present context. 76 $ 2.17 Expectancy, competency, and proximity are, as noticed i n $ 2.1, the properties of an adequate sentence. But they are sometimes also s a i d to be the causes of cognition of the meaning of a sentence. In such contexts, 'cognition' i s used i n a psychological sense which, how-ever, i s i n e s s e n t i a l f o r my purpose. In l i n e with the s t i p u l a t i o n , which I made i n keeping with the s p i r i t of the Nn thinking ($$ 0.20, 1.3, 1.11, cf 3.10-16), I s h a l l depsychologise i t i n a l l such cases. That i s , I s h a l l take 'cognition' only i n the sense of i t s content: cognition of expectancy w i l l be taken as expectancy i t s e l f ; c ognition of the meaning of a sentence (vdkyartha-jHana) w i l l be taken as j u s t the meaning of that sentence (vdkyartha); cognition of the meaning of a word (paddrtha-jftdna) w i l l be taken as j u s t the meaning of a word (paddrtha) and so on."*" To say, then, that expectancy e t c . , are the causes of cognition of the 17 akahksa-yogyata-sarmidhis ca vakyartha-onana-hetuh (TS 60j cf BP 82-83). 18 This, however, presents a problem. One cannot i n general say that the cognition of a; i s s i t s e l f . The cognition of a table i s not the table; i t i s rather the concept of a table. On the other hand, the cognition of the meaning of a sentence i s the meaning i t s e l f of that sentence, rather than the concept of that meaning. Perhaps, t h i s d i f f i c u l t y can be resolved thus: where x i s a concept, the cognition of x i s the same as x; but where x i s an object, the cognition of x i s the concept of x. This l i n e of approach was a c t u a l l y i n d i c a t e d by Punyaraja (or Punjaraja) (15th century A.D.), the alleged author of the Vakya-kanda-tika, a commentary on the second book of Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiya. Punyaraja, and i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y Bhartrhari himself, s a i d that the meaning of a word i s the object i f the object e x i s t s , but otherwise i t i s a concept (Aklujkar 1970a:98, 242; cp Quine 1961:22). I n c i d e n t a l l y , Aklujkar ("The Authorship of the Vdkya-kdnda-t'ikdi forthcoming) questions the b e l i e f that Punyaraja i s the author of the Vakya-kanda-tZkd. He thinks that Helaraja (10th century A.D.) i s i t s r e a l author. 77 19 meaning of a sentence i s j u s t to say that they are the determinants of the meaning of a sentence. One can, therefore, say not only that a sentence i s adequate i f and only i f i t has those p r o p e r t i e s , but also that i t i s adequate i f and only i f i t has meaning, and also that i t has those properties i f and only i f i t has meaning. The possession of meaning presupposes that the sentence i n question i s well-formed, i . e . , syntac-t i c a l l y sound. Hence, not merely competency, but also expectancy and proximity are s a i d to be the determinants of the meaning of a sentence. I t should be noted, however, that one can a r r i v e at these equivalences even without depsychologising cognition. Even i f one says that one cognises expectancy etc., i f and only i f one cognises the mean-ing of the relevant sentence, expectancy e t c . , of a sentence would s t i l l be equivalent to (coextensive with) the meaning of that sentence. I f 'cognition of x' and 'cognition of y' are equivalent, x and y must be equivalent. A ft A * * A * $2.18 An adequate sentence (pramana-vakya) i s a sentence with a meaning and corresponds to the En g l i s h notion of a sentence. The meaning of such 20 a sentence i s c a l l e d 'sabdabodha' (or sabdajFlana). The Sabdabodha of a d e c l a r a t i v e sentence i s simply what I have c a l l e d 'cognition' (jfiana) 19 These determinants are d i f f e r e n t from contextual factors d i s -ambiguating an expression. For an account of the l a t t e r see Raja 1963: 48-59. 20 vakyartha-jnanam Gabda-jnanam (TS 63; cp $ 2.17). 78 ($$ 1.1-3; c f M a t i l a l 1966:393). H e r e a f t e r , I s h a l l u s e 'sabdabodha' 21 o n l y i n r e l a t i o n t o d e c l a r a t i v e s e n t e n c e s . ' C o g n i t i o n ' and 'sabdabodha', t h e n , w i l l b e , f o r me, i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e . The Nn n o t i o n o f c o g n i t i o n i s , as remarked i n $$ 1.5-6, F r e g e a n . Hence, 'sabdabodha' as a synonym f o r ' c o g n i t i o n ' s i g n i f i e s an a b s t r a c t e n t i t y w h i c h , r a t h e r t h a n t h e s e n t e n c e e x p r e s s i n g i t , i s t h e r e a l b e a r e r o f t r u t h - v a l u e s ($ 1 . 7 ) , o r as F r e g e w o u l d s a y , d e t e r m i n e s one o r t h e o t h e r t r u t h - v a l u e . Such a n o t i o n o f c o g n i t i o n i s b e s e t w i t h d i f f i c u l t i e s . F i r s t l y , i t r e s u l t s i n t h e a d m i s s i o n i n t o t h e o n t o l o g y o f a t h e o r y o f c o m p l i c a t i n g e l e m e n t s whose i n d i s p e n s a b i l i t y i s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d , and w h i c h , on t h e c o n t r a r y , a r e h e l d by some t o be d i s p e n s a b l e . P h i l o s o p h e r s l i k e Quine ( 1 9 6 0 : 2 0 6 - 0 8 ) , f o r e x ample, b e l i e v e t h a t any t h i n g t h a t can be done by means o f sen t e n c e - m e a n i n g s ( i . e . , c o g n i t i o n s ) c a n be done by means o f s e n t e n c e s a l o n e . The n o t i o n o f c o g n i t i o n ( o r sabdabodha), t h e r e f o r e , v i o l a t e s t h e l a w o f p a r s i m o n y , o r t o bo r r o w a Nn t e r m , i s 'heavy' (guru). S e c o n d l y , no p r i n c i p l e o f i n d i v i d u a t i n g c o g n i t i o n s has been p r o d u c e d s o f a r . T h a t i s , one does n o t have an e f f e c t i v e way o f t e l l i n g when one has two meanings and when one has one. I f one c o u l d g i v e an adequate c r i t e r -i o n o f synonymy, one c o u l d , p e r h a p s , say t h a t meaning A e q u a l s meaning S, i f and o n l y i f a i s synonymous w i t h b, where a e x p r e s s e s A and b 2 1 M a t i l a l (1966:382, cp 385-86, 388, 392-93; 1968a:19) s a y s t h a t sabdabodha i s t h e cognitive meaning o f a s e n t e n c e , i . e . , t h e meaning o f a d e c l a r a t i v e s e n t e n c e o n l y . S t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g , t h i s i s n o t c o r r e c t ; f o r t h e NNs, t h e meaning o f any s e n t e n c e w h a t e v e r i s sabdabodha ( f n 2.20). I n f a c t , M a t i l a l i s , i n t h e p r e s e n t c o n t e x t , t a l k i n g about t h e meaning o f a s e n t e n c e i n g e n e r a l . One may, o f c o u r s e , c o n f i n e 'sabdabodha' as I do t o d e c l a r a t i v e s e n t e n c e s f o r p r a c t i c a l c o n v e n i e n c e . 79 expresses B. Unfortunately, such a c r i t e r i o n i s not a v a i l a b l e (Quine 1961:27-32). Attempts such as Church (1946:31; 1951:3-24) to f i n d a p r i n c i p l e of i n d i v i d u a t i o n are not generally regarded (even by himself) as s a t i s f a c t o r y . Because of such d i f f i c u l t i e s , some l i k e Quine (1961:11-12, 47-48) r e j e c t the notion of meaning as an abstract e n t i t y , and p r e f e r to t a l k i n terms of s i g n i f i c a n c e and synonymy despite the d i f f i c u l t i e s involved i n adequately c h a r a c t e r i s i n g these. "What sense" asks Quine (1961:4) "can be found i n t a l k i n g of e n t i t i e s which cannot meaningfully be s a i d to be i d e n t i c a l with themselves, and d i s t i n c t from one another?", and declares (1960:206) that "The very question of the conditions f o r i d e n t i t y of propositions presents not so much an unsolved problem as a mistaken i d e a l " . He explains the meaningfulness of an expression i n terms of d i s p o s i t i o n s of language users to ver b a l behavior. He also suggests (1960:201) the p o s s i b i l i t y that the meaning of a sentence could be i d e n t i -f i e d 'with the very cl a s s of a l l those mutually synonymous sentences that are s a i d to have i t ' . $ 2.19 The NNs, however, are not aware of the d i f f i c u l t i e s j u s t men-tioned, and f r e e l y t a l k about meanings. Lacking a p r i n c i p l e of i n d i v i d u a -t i o n f o r cognitions, they take recourse to l i n g u i s t i c ( s y n t a c t i c ) c r i t e r i a i n t h e i r explanation of the q u a l i f i c a t i v e character of cognitions. Which element i n a given cognition i s a q u a l i f i e r and which i s a q u a l i f i c a n d i s to be determined, according to them, by the str u c t u r e of the sentence expressing that cognition ( M a t i l a l 1968a:ll, cf 14; 1966:388). For 80 instance, the sentence (1) "ghatavad bhutalam" ("The ground has a pot") i s s a i d to express a cognition i n which the q u a l i f i e r i s a pot (gha^a), and the q u a l i f i c a n d i s the ground (bhutalam); but the sentence (2) "bhutale ghatah" (("There i s ) a pot on the ground") i s s a i d to express a d i f f e r e n t cognition whose q u a l i f i e r and q u a l i f i c a n d are r e s p e c t i v e l y (occurrence on) the ground and a pot (Ingalls 1951:42; M a t i l a l 1968a:14; 1966:386; Athalye:226). In so f a r as a cognition i s the meaning of a sentence, one would have thought that these two sentences, being synony-mous, express the same cognition. Yet, because of t h e i r r e l i a n c e on l i n g u i s t i c considerations f o r i n d i v i d u a t i n g cognitions, the NNs are l e d to accept the awkward p o s i t i o n that j u s t because the two sentences have d i f f e r e n t grammatical st r u c t u r e s , the 'structure' of the corresponding cognitions must be d i f f e r e n t , and hence that they cannot be i d e n t i c a l . But a cognition i s a ' t r a n s l a t i o n a l constant' (cf M a t i l a l 1968a:11, Quine 1960:206): a sentence i s to a cognition what a d e s c r i p t i o n i s to an i n d i v i d u a l . Just as two synonymous d e s c r i p t i o n s , however d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t u r e , r e f e r to the same i n d i v i d u a l , synonymous sentences must express the same cognition despite t h e i r s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s . The same point can be made with regard to any other p a i r of synonymous sentences d i f f e r i n g i n grammatical s t r u c t u r e , f o r example, a sentence i n the a c t i v e voice (say, "ramah pustakam pathati" "Rama reads a book") and i t s counter-part i n the passive voice ("ramena pustakam pathyate" "A book i s read by Rama"). A further d i f f i c u l t y i s that there are s e v e r a l sorts of (declara-t i v e ) s e n t e n c e s — f o r instance, conditionals and d i s j u n c t i o n s etc.—where 81 i t i s not c l e a r (at l e a s t from the sources I have consulted) what the q u a l i f i e r s and q u a l i f i c a n d s are (fn 2.32). Even i f one could decide what these are i n a sentence of one of these types, (say, a conditional) they would not n e c e s s a r i l y be the same i n a synonymous sentence of another type (say, a d i s j u n c t i o n ) . $2.20 Had the NNs questioned the synonymity of (1) and (2), they would be j u s t i f i e d i n saying that the q u a l i f i e r s and q u a l i f i c a n d s are d i f f e r e n t i n the two sentences. This, however, does not seem to be the case. For example, I n g a l l s (1951:36, 43) e x p l i c i t l y says, "For 'possesses' (-mant3 -vant3 -in) 3 one may s u b s t i t u t e the synonym ' ( i s ) a locus o f (adhika-rana)", and "The locus may be s a i d to 'possess' the super-stratum (ghatavad bhutalam). The super-stratum may be s a i d to occur or reside or be i n the locus (bhutale ghato vcwtate . . . )". And M a t i l a l (1968a:17, cf 32) follows s u i t , " . . . the schema f o r a q u a l i f i c a t i v e cognition which has a as i t s q u a l i f i c a n d , and b as i t s q u a l i f i e r . . . can be w r i t t e n as . . . i n short 'Z? occurs i n a ' or ' a has b' . . . " (cf Berg 1970:572). Such remarks as these by contemporary wri t e r s suggest that the NNs treated (1) and (2) as synonymous and used them i n d i f f e r e n t l y to express the same cognition. There seems to be, then, a s t r a i g h t contra-d i c t i o n i n the Nn p o s i t i o n : (1) and (2) both express and do not express the same cognition. This c o n t r a d i c t i o n , apparently not noticed by e i t h e r I n g a l l s or M a t i l a l , i s perhaps a consequence of the r e c o g n i t i o n of cognitions as abstract, sentence-independent, e n t i t i e s . The only way out of t h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n i s to admit no synonymity at a l l between sentences, 82 not only of d i f f e r e n t grammatical str u c t u r e , but also of the same st r u c t u r e . For, the sentences "p i f and only i f q" and "q i f and only i f p" have the same grammatical str u c t u r e , and yet the q u a l i f i e r s and q u a l i f i c a n d s , as understood by the NNs, would not be the same i n the two. But they would have to be the same i f the two sentences are regarded as synonymous. The l i n g u i s t i c c r i t e r i a that the NNs adopt f o r determining q u a l i f i e r s and q u a l i f i c a n d s would indeed provide a p r i n c i p l e of i n d i v i -duation f o r cognitions only at the very high p r i c e , namely, that no two sentences are synonymous. $2.21 Though s t r i c t l y speaking only (and a l l ) cognitions are q u a l i f i -22 ca t i v e even t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c c o r r e l a t e s , the sentences, are regarded as such i n a d e r i v a t i v e sense (cf $$ 1.7, 3.23; cp Convention E ) . That a l l ( d e c l a r a t i v e , $ 2.19) sentences express cognitions e n t a i l s that they a l l are q u a l i f i c a t i v e , whatever t h e i r grammatical s t r u c t u r e ( M a t i l a l 1966:388). Sentences (1) and (2), therefore, are to be regarded as equally q u a l i f i c a t i v e despite t h e i r d i f f e r e n t grammatical s t r u c t u r e . (2) i s an example of what i s c a l l e d the prop e r t y - l o c a t i o n language, frequently employed by the NNs, which makes use of the notion of occurrence (vrtti). In i t , the ground i s said to be the locus ( adhikararuz) (or sub-stratum (adhara) or abode (dsraya)); a pot i s s a i d to be the super-stratum (adheya) (or the occurrent (vartin)) (Ingalls 1951:43, 45). It may be r e c a l l e d that I ignore indeterminate cognitions. See fn 1.7. 83 $2.22 Regarding sentences as qualificative, the NNs give semantic 23 analyses so as to bring out qualifiers and qualificands. In so far as i t is sentences themselves rather than cognitions that are being meta-li n g u i s t i c a l l y analysed, one might think that qualifiers and qualificands are no longer objects but their names. That, however, is not the case. They continue to be regarded as objects. The purpose of the semantic analysis i s to render the qualificative character of a sentence exp l i c i t . The NNs hold that, i n the semantic analysis of a sentence, the chief qualificand must be signified by a subject-noun. The grammarians on the other hand,'maintain that i t must be signified by a verbal element ($ 1.14). The two r i v a l views, in their primary application to sabdabodha or cogni-tion, are respectively called prathamantartha-rmkhya-visesy bodha and dhdtv artha-mukhya-visesyaka-sabda-bodha (Matilal 1966:388, esp fn 22). According to the NNs, the semantic rendition of the sentence, (3) ramo 'svam ardhati ("Rama mounts a horse"), would be, (4) asva-karrmkarohananukula-kr ramdh ("Rama possesses the activity conducive to mounting which (activity) has a horse for i t s object"). The distinction between object-language and meta-language which such an analysis demands was f a i r l y well-known to ancient Indian thinkers, especially to grammarians l i k e Panini. Staal (1962:53) thinks that even the distinction between use and mention was known to them. 84 (4) clearly brings out, ate (1) does not, that Rama is the chief q u a l i f i -cand and the activity of mounting a horse i s the quali f i e r . Again the sentence, (5) suro ramah krsnam asvam arohati ("The brave Rama mounts • • • a black horse"), would be analysed as (6) krs.natva-visis,$as'va-karmakaYohananuk^ suratva-visiqpas ca ramah ("Rama is qualified by bravery and by the activity of mounting which has for i t s object a horse which i s qualified by blackness"). (6) indicates that there are more than one qualifier and more than one qualificand i n (5) ($ 1.8). The qualifiers are: bravery, blackness, and the activity of mounting a black horse. The corresponding q u a l i f i -cands are respectively Rama, horse and Rama. Of these, Rama is said to be the chief qualificand, and the activity of mounting a black horse is said 24 to be the chief qualifier (see fn 1.15). The NNs also hold that every object signified by a class-term i s necessarily qualified by i t s class-character (i.e., the property determining the class i n question). A man, for example, i s said to be qualified by manness3 a horse by horseness, and so on. Such qualifiers are sometimes (e.g., by Ingalls 1951:48) called 'resident limitors'. They are not usually mentioned in the verbal expressions of cognitions, but are taken to be understood (Matilal 1968a:18; 1966:388). In the case of (5), both blackness and horseness are qualifiers of a horse. Ramaness i s not a qualifier of Rama, for 'Rama' i s not a general term. 85 $ 2.23 In saying that a l l sentences are q u a l i f i c a t i v e , the NNs are committed to the view that a l l sentences are p r e d i c a t i v e ( i . e . , of the subject-predicate) form. A p r e d i c a t i v e sentence i s the counterpart, i n the formal mode of speech, of a ( q u a l i f i c a t i v e ) cognition. The q u a l i f i e r s and the q u a l i f i c a n d s of a cognition roughly correspond, on a l i n g u i s t i c l e v e l , to the subjects and predicates of a sentence ($$ 2.19-20; M a t i l a l 1968a:11, 14). The NNs seem to consciously accept t h i s con-sequence. This i s ind i c a t e d by the fac t that they reduce r e l a t i o n s to prop e r t i e s : an n-ary r e l a t i o n (n>2) i s f i r s t reduced to a se r i e s of binary r e l a t i o n s , and the l a t t e r i n turn to properties (Ingalls 1951:44 fn 55, 72; M a t i l a l 1968a:33-37). I t i s not c l e a r how the n-ary r e l a t i o n s 25 are reduced to the binary r e l a t i o n s , but a binary r e l a t i o n l i k e being the father of i s treated as the property, fatherhood (Ingalls c a l l s such properties ' r e l a t i o n a l a b s t r a c t s ' ) . This means that the two-place predicate ' i s the father o f i s reduced to the one-place predicate 'has fatherhood as conditioned by a' (where a i s the name of an i n d i v i d u a l ) . For example, the r e l a t i o n a l sentence, "John i s the father of James" i s reduced to the p r e d i c a t i v e sentence, "John has (or i s the locus of) 26 fatherhood as conditioned by James". The view that a l l sentences are, f o r the NNs, p r e d i c a t i v e might suggest that a predicate, as i n En g l i s h , includes the verb. This, however, 25 Ingall's very brief i l l u s t r a t i o n of the reduction i s not of much help. 26 Such a reduction has the result that i n place of a single two-place predicate, there would be i n f i n i t e l y many one-place predicates (cp Matilal 1968a:33-34). 86 i s not the case: i n Sanskrit a sentence need not contain a verb (fn 1.12). $ 2.24 That there are serious d i f f i c u l t i e s i n reducing n-adic predicates (n>l) to monadic ones i s now too well-known to deserve s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n here. I t w i l l s u f f i c e to take j u s t one example (due to De Morgan): there i s no way of reducing the general sentence, If a horse i s an animal, then the head of a horse i s the head of an animal [symbolically, (x)(Hx -*• Ax) (x) ((ly) (By & Rxy) ((ly) (Ay & Rxy))l, to a sentence containing only monadic predicates, i f the corresponding inference, A horse i s an animal. Therefore, the head of a horse i s the head of an animal, 27 i s to be formally v a l i d . I t i s , of course, possible to bring a l l predicates on the same l e v e l by a process of 'upgrading'. Consider, f o r instance, a language i n which there are no predicates of degree higher than n and P i s a predicate of degree i>n. One can form i n such a language a new predicate P of degree n such that Pfx,,x 0,..,x...,x ) i f and only i f P(x-,xn....,x.) 1 a v n 1 2 % by simply adding the sequence (x. 7> .. .3x ) to each i-tuple of P (where x^+^...Xn are any objects whatsoever). To i l l u s t r a t e , i f n = 3, the monadic predicate F such that F = {x/x i s fat} and F(John), can be changed 27 I t can, of course, be so reduced: "(x)(Hx •> Ax) (y)(Sy •+ Ty)". But then the corresponding inference would not be formally v a l i d . 87 i n t o the equivalent t e t r a d i c predicate F f o r which, f o r example, F(John, Jim, t h i s t a b l e ) . S i m i l a r l y , the dyadic predicate T such that T = {<x, yy/x i s t a l l e r than y} and T(John, Jim), can be equivalently expressed as the t e t r a d i c predicate T f o r which, f o r example, f(John, Jim, A). Thus, P, a set of i - t u p l e s i s turned i n t o P, a set of n-tuples. Such 'upgrading', however, i s an a r t i f i c i a l device, and does not a f f e c t the important d i f f e r e n c e between n-adic predicates (n>l) and predicates of degree 1. $2.25 A contri b u t i n g f a c t o r i n the NNs' f a i l u r e to see the i r r e d u c i -b i l i t y of n-adic predicates i s perhaps t h e i r ignorance of the use of 28 v a r i a b l e s . Usually, the examples they consider are s i n g u l a r r e l a t i o n a l sentences i n v o l v i n g proper names. Though such examples are t y p i c a l and the proper names play, to some extent, the r o l e of v a r i a b l e s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to shed altogether the uniqueness involved i n them. Singular r e l a t i o n a l sentences ( l i k e , "John i s the father of Jane") can be reduced to sentences i n v o l v i n g one-place predicates, (though with some a r t i f i c i -a l i t y ) , and t h i s perhaps l e d the NNs to be l i e v e that a l l r e l a t i o n a l sentences ( i n c l u d i n g general ones) could be so reduced. Even when the examples of r e l a t i o n a l sentences contained general terms, such terms often functioned as singular terms (owing to the lack of d e f i n i t e , and also i n d e f i n i t e , a r t i c l e s i n Sanskrit (fn 1.12)), and the general character It should be noted that the use of v a r i a b l e s by i t s e l f does not guarantee that the appropriate s t r u c t u r e of a sentence i s grasped. Such a use only f a c i l i t a t e s that grasp. A r i s t o t l e , f o r instance used (inven-ted?) v a r i a b l e s , and yet, l i k e the NNs, f a i l e d to see the i r r e d u c i b i l i t y of n-adic predicates. 88 of the sentences was not f u l l y r e a l i s e d . I t i s not c l e a r i f the NNs considered general r e l a t i o n a l sentences i n v o l v i n g only u n i v e r s a l quanti-f i e r s (such as "Oceans are l a r g e r than r i v e r s " ; i n symbols, "(x) (y) ((Ox & By) -*• Lxy)")j nor, i f they d i d , how they would reduce such sentences to those i n v o l v i n g only one-place predicates. At any r a t e , the NNs most c e r t a i n l y d i d not consider general r e l a t i o n a l sentences i n v o l v i n g mixed q u a n t i f i e r s (such as "Every man i s somebody's son"; i n symbols, "(x)(l!x (3y)Sxy)"; or the example about the head of a horse mentioned above); and i t i s these sentences that are the most i n t r a c t a b l e as regards t h e i r r e d u c i b i l i t y . In f a c t , the NNs do not have an analogue f o r the e x i s t e n t i a l q u a n t i f i e r , though they do have one f o r the u n i v e r s a l q u a n t i f i e r (Goekoop 1967:12). Such c r i t i c i s m s apply, to remind oneself of a well-worn f a c t , also to A r i s t o t l e ' s view that a l l sentences have the same monolithic character. For A r i s t o t l e , as f o r the NNs, a l l sentences are p r e d i c a t i v e . ft * ft * * * * $2.26 I t was noticed e a r l i e r ($$1.8-10) that the elements of a cognition are q u a l i f i e r s , q u a l i f i c a n d s and t h e i r connectors ( i . e . , the r e l a t i o n s l i n k i n g them, namely, inherence, contact and p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i -f i c a t i o n ) . Of these, only q u a l i f i e r s and q u a l i f i c a n d s f i n d e x p l i c i t mention i n the l i n g u i s t i c expression of a cognition. A cognition can have more than one q u a l i f i c a n d or more than one q u a l i f i e r , i n which case i t w i l l have one chief q u a l i f i c a n d and one chief q u a l i f i e r . But i t must have at l e a s t one q u a l i f i c a n d and one q u a l i f i e r . An important 89 question a r i s e s with regard to the precise nature of a q u a l i f i c a n d and a q u a l i f i e r . With a view to s i m p l i f y i n g matters, I s h a l l deal with t h i s question mainly with reference to chief q u a l i f i c a n d s and c h i e f q u a l i f i e r s i n these few sections ($$ 2.26-31). For the purpose of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , the only q u a l i f i c a n d and the only q u a l i f i e r of a cognition may be regarded as the chief q u a l i f i c a n d and the chief q u a l i f i e r of that cogni-t i o n . Since q u a l i f i c a n d s and 1 q u a l i f i e r s are elements of a co g n i t i o n , t h e i r nature must depend on the nature of t h e i r containing cognition. The paradigm cases of cognitions which both the NNs and t h e i r modern exponents (e.g., M a t i l a l 1968a:14-15; 1966:386-91) give to i l l u s t r a t e t h e i r q u a l i f i c a t i v e character are such as the following: (1) [Devadatta i s f a t | . (pZno devadattah). (2) | Indira's son i s a great poet|. (indira-tanayah kavi-29 puhgavah.). (3) |This mountain has f i r e | . (parvato 'yam vahniman). A q u a l i f i e r i n such cases i s sa i d to be n e c e s s a r i l y a property (visesana, prakdras dharma) or. a r e l a t i o n (sambandha), the l a t t e r being a s s i m i l a t e d to the former by the NNs ($ 2.23). Hence, fat (pina), great poet (kavi-puhgava), and fire (vdhni)—the q u a l i f i e r s r e s p e c t i v e l y of the above three c o g n i t i o n s — a r e a l l to be considered as p r o p e r t i e s . I t might be This example i s coined by me. An example that a c t u a l l y occurs i n the Nyaya t r a d i t i o n i s : 'yah sukla-vdsdh' ('that man who wears the white garment') occurring i n "yah. sukla-vdsdh tarn dnaya" ("Bring that man who wears the white garment").. 90 suggested that these are sets, but the NNs do not talk (explicitly at 30 any rate) about sets and the set-membership relation. $2.27 It is clear that the paradigm cases of cognitions mentioned above are atomic in the sense that their l i n g u i s t i c expressions involve only what in the relevant contexts are to be taken as the equivalents in natural language of individual constants and predicate-letters of 31 the formal language of logic. The predicates involved in these cases are monadic, but as noted above ($ 2.23), the NNs reduce n-adic predi-cates to monadic ones, so that cognitions involving the former present Perhaps, the Nn analogue of the set-membership relation is the relation between a locus and what occurs in i t ($ 2.22). The locus is said to be an individual, and that which occurs in i t is said to be a property (cp Goekoop 1967:4). But, as was shown before, the relation between them i s the same as that between a qualificand and i t s qualifier ($ 2.20). The locus-terminilogy or 'the property-location' language is thus a linguistic quirk of the NNs rather than a real conceptual i n -sight. 31 There is controversy about whether proper names and definite descriptions (or other singular terms) necessarily name (i.e., satisfy the uniqueness condition, or guarantee the existence of the object they purport to name). One has a tendency to believe that proper names necessarily name but that descriptive phrases do not. But as Quine (1959:216-19; 1961:5-8) has shown, there i s no logical distinction between the two; the former can always be converted into the latter. A l l singular terms only purport to name and are powerless to ensure the existence of the alleged object (Quine 1959:197, 206). If so, unless additional infor-mation about the actual existence of the named object is available, a singular term cannot be treated as the equivalent of an individual constant of predicate logic. However, the NNs are operating on a f a i r l y intuitive level, and presuppose in cases lik e (1) - (3) that the concerned objects do exist. Besides, their theory of unexampled terms ($$ 2.7-9) disallows the use of singular terms that do not have application. Owing to these reasons, I have treated the singular terms occurring in the expressions of (1) - (3) as equivalents of individual constants. Cp Carnap 1956:32-39, Kalish and Montague 1964:233-70. 91 no s p e c i a l problems, according to them, regarding the character of t h e i r q u a l i f i c a n d s . A l l t h i s means that a q u a l i f i c a n d i n such cases i s an i n d i v i d u a l . In the three cognitions given above, the q u a l i f i c a n d s are re s p e c t i v e l y , Devaaatta, Indira's son, and this mountain. In the f i r s t case, the q u a l i f i c a n d i s named by a proper name; i n the second, by a d e f i n i t e d e s c r i p t i o n , and i n the t h i r d , by a general term followed (or preceded) by a demonstrative pronoun. Sometimes, a cognition may be expressed by an ambiguous expression as, f o r instance, by (4) parvato vahniman "Mountain has f i r e " . Cwing to the lack of a r t i c l e s i n Sanskrit (fn 1.12), i t i s not clear whether (4) taken i n i s o l a t i o n expresses a general cognition or an atomic one. However, i n most cases the ambiguity i s resolved by the context, and (4) i s taken to be equivalent, both i n sense and t r u t h -value, to (5) parvato 'yarn vahniman "This mountain has f i r e " which of course, i s an atomic sentence and expresses the corresponding 32 atomic cognition. Ambiguity of t h i s sort can, of course, be misleading, 32 Presumably, a q u a l i f i c a n d i s an i n d i v i d u a l also i f i t i s an element of a t r u t h - f u n c t i o n a l cognition. However, i n Nn the status of t r u t h - f u n c t i o n a l cognitions i s not cl e a r , and I abstain from drawing any conclusions regarding the NNs' views on the issue except i n the t r i v i a l cases of conjunction and negation. A conjunction has, accord-ing to the NNs, as many chief q u a l i f i c a n d s as the l i n g u i s t i c expressions of i t s (atomic) parts have d i s t i n c t subjects (cp $ 2.19). See for some h e l p f u l remarks regarding the Nn views on truth-functions, I n g a l l s 1951: 35, 63-72; M a t i l a l 1968a:15-16; SM 70; TS 64. 92 and has i n fa c t l e d at l e a s t one contemporary author to hold what seems to me an awkward theory ($ 5.16). $2.28 So f a r the Nn account of the nature of a q u a l i f i c a n d i s at le a s t i n t e l l i g i b l e . I t ceases to be i n t e l l i g i b l e when one considers 33 non-atomic ( i . e . , universal) cognitions. In u n i v e r s a l cognitions, 34 as i n atomic ones, the q u a l i f i e r i s s a i d to be a property. For example i n the cognitions, (6) [Whatever has smoke has f i r e | (yo yo dhumavan sa sa vahniman), and (7) |A horse has a t a i l | (lahgulavan asvah)3 the q u a l i f i c a n d s are sa i d to be, r e s p e c t i v e l y , an entity having smoke and a horse. But, i t i s not c l e a r what p r e c i s e l y i s the nature of these q u a l i f i c a n d s according to the NNs. In f a c t , i n t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n of the q u a l i f i c a t i v e character of cognitions, the NNs usu a l l y do not consider u n i v e r s a l cognitions. Though both I n g a l l s (1951:42-43) and M a t i l a l (1966:391; 1968a:15) do mention them, they do not seem to r e a l i s e the d i f f i c u l t y such cognitions present. Since the q u a l i f i c a n d of a un i v e r s a l cognition i s expressed by a general term, the question regarding the character of such a q u a l i f i -cand can be rephrased as, "What i s the meaning of a general term?" The It may be r e c a l l e d that the NNs do not have e x i s t e n t i a l cogni-tions and sentences i n t h e i r t e c h n i c a l language ($ 2.25). ^SM 58; M a t i l a l .1966:386; 1968a: 12,13,15,16,18,88, cf 119; 1970:84; Ingalls 1951:39-40; Potter 1957:7; Kitagawa 1965:19, fn 3. 93 Nn answer (discussed i n $$ 1.16-17) to t h i s question amounts to saying that the meaning of a general word i n v a r i a b l y comprises both i n t e n s i o n and extension simultaneously. However, that answer comes i n t o c o n f l i c t with the type of semantic analysis ( i . e . , i n terms of q u a l i f i e r and qu a l i f i c a n d ) that the NNs give of ( e s p e c i a l l y universal) sentences. A general word can occur e i t h e r as a subject or as a predicate of a u n i v e r s a l sentence as instanced by (7). When i t occurs as a predicate, the NNs regard i t as naming a q u a l i f i e r which i s i n v a r i a b l y a property (fn 2 . 3 4 ) . In such an occurrence, therefore, the meaning (artha) of a general word cannot be both i n t e n s i o n and extension at once. I t can only be intension. When, on the other hand, a general word occurs as the subject of a u n i v e r s a l sentence, the NNs regard i t as naming a 35 q u a l i f i c a n d which i s i n v a r i a b l y an i n d i v i d u a l (visesya, dharmin)_, and not a property. In such an occurrence, the meaning of a general word can only be extension, but extension i n the sense of a s p e c i a l sort of i n d i v i d u a l , not i n the sense of a class of i n d i v i d u a l s to which the word i s a p p l i c a b l e . But since a general word i s not a name l i k e ordinary names (which name only determinate i n d i v i d u a l s ) , the i n d i v i d u a l i t names must be, so the NNs seem to argue, an indeterminate i n d i v i d u a l d i s t i n c t from any p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l as w e l l as from the u n i v e r s a l . In (7), for instance, the word 'horse' i s s a i d to name, not any given horse, but a s p e c i a l sort of horse which shares the common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a l l horses, and yet manages to avoid t h e i r p e c u l i a r i t i e s . In thinking that See preceding fn f o r references. 94 the meaning of a general word (in i t s usage as the subject of a sentence) i s an (indeterminate) i n d i v i d u a l which i t names, the NNs seem to have been influenced by Vatsyayana (NBh 2.2.59) who says that "an a t t r i b u t e can be predicated of an object alone, not of a u n i v e r s a l " (Raja 1963:71; cf Datta 1960:265-66). $2.29 Th ere i s , then, a two-fold tension i n the NNs' b e l i e f s about what cons t i t u t e s the meaning of a general word. F i r s t , there i s the b e l i e f that the meaning i s at once intension and extension, which con-f l i c t s with the b e l i e f , i m p l i c i t i n the type of semantic analysis of sentences adopted by the NNs, that the meaning of a general word can be e i t h e r i n t e n s i o n alone or extension alone. Second, there i s the b e l i e f that the extension of a general word i s the set of objects to each of which the given word i s app l i c a b l e ; and i t c o n f l i c t s with the b e l i e f that the extension of such a word i s an indeterminate i n d i v i d u a l . I t has already been noticed ($$ 1.16-17) that the Nn b e l i e f that a word can have both i n t e n s i o n and extension at the same time i n a l l of i t s uses i s mistaken. S i m i l a r l y , the Nn b e l i e f that a general word can name an indeterminate i n d i v i d u a l i s also mistaken. An indeterminate i n d i v i d u a l i s not an i n d i v i d u a l ; there are not two kinds of i n d i v i d u a l s , determinate and indeterminate. The expression 'a horse' does not name an indeterminate i n d i v i d u a l . In f a c t , i t does not name at a l l : i t i s j u s t a l i n g u i s t i c device f o r t a l k i n g about any one member (or a l l ) of 36 the class of horses. I t i s a general term, and as Berkeley and Hume There have indeed been, even i n recent times, l o g i c i a n s l i k e Camap (1956:19, 100-17) who hold that a general word ('predicator' i n 95 said long ago, a term becomes general simply by being applied to a number of individuals, and not by being made the name of some undetermined individual. It corresponds, roughly to the variable of a formalised language. A variable, surely, i s not the name of any thing, though some people have believed i t to be such. As Tarski (1946:4) says, ". . . i t is said that the symbols 'x' , ' i / ' , . . . also denote certain numbers or quantities, not 'constant numbers' however (which are denoted by con-stants like '0', '1', . . . ) but the so-called 'variable numbers' or rather 'variable quantities'. Statements of this kind have their source in a gross misunderstanding". It must be concluded, then, that the qualificand of a universal cognition i s not an individual, as the NNs thought. The upshot of a l l this is that the qualificand-qualifier model into which the NNs try to f i t a l l cognitions is inadequate: either a qualificand is an individual i n which case universal cognitions are l e f t unexplained and the model turns out to be at best incomplete; or i t i s not an individual i n which case i t i s not clear what i t i s and the model turns out to be unintelligible. $2.30 It should be noted that i n (3) to (6), the qualifier is not an individual having five (vahniman) but five (vahni). The former is not a Carnap's terminology) can be said to name i t s extension, and that the extension i s a class. But classes, even i f they are admitted as i n d i v i -duals, are by no means indeterminate. The principle of extensionality provides a perfectly adequate identity-condition for them. No identity-condition i s available for the indeterminate individuals admitted i n this context by the NNs. 96 property according to the NNs, but the l a t t e r i s as a q u a l i f i e r . Again, i n (6) the q u a l i f i c a n d i s said to be an individual having smoke (dhumavan), but smoke (dhuma) i t s e l f i s s a i d to be a property. S i m i l a r l y , i n (7) even though the q u a l i f i c a n d i s s a i d to be j u s t a horse and there does not seem to be any q u a l i f i e r (except the chief q u a l i f i e r ) attached to i t , yet on the Nn theory that an i n d i v i d u a l has of necessity the property determining i t s c l a s s , a horse also has i t s own (unexpressed) q u a l i f i e r namely, horseness (fn 2.24). Thus, every q u a l i f i c a n d of a u n i v e r s a l cognition n e c e s s a r i l y involves a property. Since every q u a l i f i e r i s ne c e s s a r i l y a property, a u n i v e r s a l cognition (vyapti) i s defined by the NNs as an i n v a r i a b l e concomitance of two properties ($$ 4.1, 4.3). I t can, therefore, be represented i n predicate l o g i c as (8) | (x) (Fx Gx) | where F and G are pro p e r t i e s . $ 2.31 The d i f f i c u l t i e s j u s t noticed regarding the nature of a q u a l i f i -cand v i t i a t e the Nn statement of the truth-conditions of a ( q u a l i f i c a t i v e ) cognition. Simply put, the statement i s : (S) A cognition i s f a l s e i f and only i f the q u a l i f i c a n d of that cognition does not have the q u a l i f i e r of that cognition (or equ i v a l e n t l y , i f and only i f the q u a l i f i e r does not occur i n the q u a l i f i c a n d ) ; otherwise i t i s true ( M a t i l a l 1968a:16). 3 7 37 Yatra yan nasti tatra tasya jffiznam, tad-abhava-vati tat-prakarakam va, aprama. tad-anyatve saty anubhavatvcm eva va pramatvam. "Cogni-t i o n of x i n that place where x does not e x i s t , or cognition of x 97 Thus, the NNs accept what i s c a l l e d the correspondence theory of t r u t h : (S) simply says that a cognition i s true j u s t i n case i t corresponds to r e a l i t y (cp Ta r s k i 1944:53-56). But the d i f f i c u l t y with (S) i s that at best i t works only with regard to atomic cognitions. I t i s useless i n the case of u n i v e r s a l cognitions. For, i f one does not know what the nature of a q u a l i f i c a n d i s , there i s no way of t e l l i n g when the cognition i n question corresponds to r e a l i t y and when i t does not. as having y when x has the absence of y i s f a l s e cognition; being a true cognition i s j u s t being a cognition d i f f e r e n t from that ( f a l s e c o g n i t i o n ) " . Gangesa (TC pt 1) c i t e d i n M a t i l a l 1968a:16, fn 31. Since the f i r s t part of (S) i s a b i - c o n d i t i o n a l , the second part i s superfluous. CHAPTER I I I WHAT IS INFERENCE? $ 3.1 The NNs' theory of inference i s influenced by t h e i r theory of c a u s a l i t y . I s h a l l , therefore, preface my account of the former with a b r i e f statement, i n $$ 3.1-3, of the l a t t e r . The NNs hold that a l l noneternal e n t i t i e s are caused.^ A cause i s s a i d to be an i n v a r i a b l e 2 antecedent immediately connected with i t s e f f e c t . Three kinds of causes are d i s t i n g u i s h e d : inhered cause (samavayi karana), uninhered cause (asamavayi karana), and instrumental cause (nimitta karana) (TS 403 BP 16-17). The inhered cause i s the substratum i n which the e f f e c t inheres. A pot i s s a i d to inhere i n the clay from which i t i s In g a l l s 1951:31. In g a l l s r e f e r s to BP 15 which, however, says only that every thing except an atom i s a cause (parimandalya-bhinnanam karanatvam udahrtam) and does not exactly support h i s remark. For, something (e.g., God, universal) may be a cause without being caused. Nevertheless, I n g a l l s ' remark does represent the Nn p o s i t i o n . Anityatva (being noneternal) and krtakatva (being caused) are, f o r the NNs, co-extensive p r o p e r t i e s . ( M a t i l a l 1968b:533; Athalye:302). 2 -karya-niyata-purva-vrtti karanam (TS 38). To t h i s TD 38 adds a f u r t h e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n namely, anythasiddha 'not remotely connected' ( l i t . not proved otherwise). BP 16 gives exactly the same d e f i n i t i o n . An anyathasiddha i s a circumstance which, though i n v a r i a b l y antecedent to the e f f e c t , i s only remotely connected with i t and, therefore, cannot be considered a cause. For instance, ne i t h e r a potter's father, nor the c o l o r of a potter's s t i c k i s the cause of a pot. Visvanatha mentions f i v e v a r i e t i e s of anyathasiddha (BP 19-22). 99 made, and a q u a l i t y say, blue, i s s a i d to inhere i n a blue pot. So, clay i s the inhered cause of the pot and a blue pot i s the inhered cause of the q u a l i t y blue (but not of blueness). Though t h i s character-i s a t i o n by i t s e l f does not mean that the inhered cause i s a material cause, the tendency among modern w r i t e r s i s to regard an inhered cause - - 3 as a material (upadana) cause; and there does seem to be some te x t u a l 4 support f o r t h i s tendency. The uninhered cause i s any q u a l i t y or a c t i o n that inheres i n the inhered cause. The color of the c l a y , f o r instance, i s the uninhered cause of the pot, but not of the color of the pot; the pot i s the inhered cause of the color of the pot. $ 3.2 The t h i r d sort of cause, namely, the instrumental cause, i s the most important of the three f o r my purpose. I t i s an instrument which, on the f u l f i l l m e n t of c e r t a i n other conditions, brings the e f f e c t i n t o existence. Instrumental causes f a l l i n t o two groups, namely, general (sadharana) and s p e c i f i c (asadharana) (fn 3.6). General causes are those conditions on which a l l e f f e c t s depend. These are things l i k e God, destiny, time, space, etc."* These being common to a l l e f f e c t s , do not s p e c i f i c a l l y enter i n t o the d e s c r i p t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r e f f e c t s . What do M a t i l a l 1959:307; Athalye:208-9; Radhakrishan 1927:95, 96; Stcherbatsky_1962a:25, fn 3; Vidyabhusana 1921:390. A c t u a l l y M a t i l a l c a l l s asamavayi karana 'material cause', but t h i s i s obviously a s l i p . 4 E. g., upaddnam samavdyikdranam. "Material cause i s inhered cause" (TD 17). Since there i s no r i g i d word-order i n Sanskrit, t h i s sentence appears to i n d i c a t e that material cause i s the same as inhered cause. NK (s.V.. upaddnam) l i s t s samavayi karana at the top of the several meanings of 'upadana'. 5TD 37; NB 37, 41; Athalye:207; Potter 1957:16. 100 enter are the s p e c i f i c instrumental (as also inhered and uninhered) causes. A s p e c i f i c instrumental cause i s that circumstance which when added to an already e x i s t i n g c o l l o c a t i o n of circumstances t r i g g e r s the e f f e c t i n t o existence. The example given i s that of a loom and s h u t t l e i n producing a c l o t h , or an axe i n f e l l i n g a tree (TS 40). A s p e c i f i c instrumental cause i s , thus, the most immediate or proximate cause, and i s c a l l e d karana ( l i t . instrument, means). Perhaps because 6 tad-etat-trividha-karana-madhye yad asadharanam karanam tad eva karanam. "There, among these three sorts of causes, only that which i s a s p e c i f i c cause i s karana". TS 41; cf TS 37. It i s not c l e a r from the texts what exactly i s the r e l a t i o n of the d i s t i n c t i o n between general and s p e c i f i c causes to that between inhered, uninhered and instrumental causes. The expression 'etat-trtvidha-karana-madhye' ('among these three sorts of causes') i n the above verse suggests that inhered and uninhered causes also can be general or s p e c i f i c ; that, i n other words, they also can be karanas. However, such an i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n i s ruled out by the following f a c t s : (1) The NNs never t a l k of inhered and uninhered causes as karanas; a l l the examples they give of karana are of s p e c i f i c instrumental cause only (e.g., potter's s t i c k , axe, loom and s h u t t l e ) . Even when they e x p l i c i t l y allow, as they sometimes do, that inhered and uninhered causes are s p e c i f i c , they deny that these can be karanas on the ground that they lack a c t i v i t y or operation (NB 41), and one cannot see what general inhered and general uninhered causes could conceivably be. (2) That at l e a s t uninhered causes cannot have a c t i v i t y i s c l e a r also from the Nn b e l i e f that a c t i v i t i e s , l i k e q u a l i t i e s , can inhere only i n substances (BP 86; Athalye:82-83; I n g a l l s 1951:37). (3) Modern English writers are unanimous i n using 'karana' only i n the sense of s p e c i f i c instrumental cause. See, f o r instance, e s p e c i a l l y Athalye:186, 210; I n g a l l s 1951:30; M a t i l a l 1959:303; Potter 1957:16; Datta 1960:27; Radhakrishnan 1927:96; Uno 1962:20; Vidyabhusana 1921:390. Owing to these reasons, I have, following f o r example Athalye:207 and Potter 1957:16, confined the g e n e r a l - s p e c i f i c d i s t i n c t i o n to instrumental causes only. I n g a l l s (1951:30) regards a l l three kinds of causes as s p e c i f i c only. T h i s , of course, has the consequence that a karana i s n e c e s s a r i l y a ( s p e c i f i c ) instrumental cause; but i t also has the consequence that general causes (God, destiny, etc.) are not instrumental causes, which, I think, goes against the d e f i n i t i o n of an instrumental cause as any cause d i f f e r e n t from inhered and uninhered causes (TS 40; BP 18). 101 general causes can hardly be c a l l e d instruments, the term 'instrumental cause' tends to be taken interchangeably with 'karana'. I s h a l l hence-f o r t h follow t h i s convenient usage. $3.3 The exact nature of an instrumental cause i s the subject of much controversy between two schools of NNs. One school upholds the t r a d i t i o n of the old Nyaya, according to which an instrumental cause i s that i n -strument which i s a c t u a l l y engaged i n the production of the e f f e c t (Ingalls 1951:31). I t i s not, f o r instance, any s t i c k i n a f o r e s t , but only that s t i c k that i s used to turn a potter's wheel, that i s the i n s t r u -mental cause of a pot. So, an instrumental cause must of necessity have a c e r t a i n a c t i v i t y or operation (vyapara)J The other school, l e d by Raghunatha, i d e n t i f i e s an instrumental cause with what i t s opponents c a l l operation. The d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of an instrumental cause according to t h i s school, i s g that i t i s immediately followed by the e f f e c t . I t i s not the axe, f o r 7 . vyaparavad asadharanam karanam karanam. . . . (NB 37). I t should be noted that s t r i c t l y speaking vyapara i s the a c t i v i t y of the agent rather.than of the instrument. Yet, the NNs regard i t as the a c t i v i t y of the instrument. I t i s not c l e a r what the status of the s o - c a l l e d e f f i c i e n t cause or agent i s according to the NNs. Presumably, the agent i s excluded on the ground that he i s not immediately connected with the e f f e c t , while h i s a c t i v i t y i s . But by t r a n s f e r r i n g the agent's a c t i v i t y to the instrument, the NNs seem to preserve something of the e f f i c i e n t cause, without e x p l i c i t l y recognising i t . Some scholars l i k e Athalye (207), Stcherbatsky (1962a:25), and Keith (1921:200), however, treat instrumental cause as i n c l u d i n g e f f i c i e n t cause. But see also Keith 1921:203. 8 phaVdyoga-vyavpdhinnam karanam Zkarariaml. Nilakantha i n NX s.v. karanam. See also Athalye: 186-91; Keith 1921:114-5, 198-204; 102 example, but i t s contact that i s sa i d to be the instrumental cause of the f a l l e n tree. Annambhatta i s said to belong to t h i s school (Ingalls 1951:32). While i t i s true that there i s some good evidence f o r t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , (e.g., TS, TD 47), there are also passages which favour assigning him to the opposite camp (e.g., TS 43, 58). I t i s c e r t a i n , however, that so f a r as the subject of inference i s concerned, he belongs to Raghunatha's camp. ft * * * A * * $3.4 The NNs hold that knowledge (prama, pramiti) i s something that i s caused. The instrumental cause of knowledge i s said to be the means of knowledge (pramana). What sort of means gives r i s e to a given knowledge depends on what so r t of knowledge i t i s . The NNs d i v i d e a l l knowledge i n t o four types: perceptual (pratyaksa or pratyaksa-jftana), i n f e r e n t i a l (anumiti), i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a l (uparrtiti), and tes t i m o n i a l or verbal ('sabda or sabdaja-jn'atvi) . The instrumental cause of each of these i s r e s p e c t i v e l y : perception (pratyaksa, the same word often being used f o r both the cause - 9 and i t s e f f e c t ) , inference (anumana), i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (upamana), and 'word' M a t i l a l 1959:304-7). There i s a controversy regarding to which of the two schools Gangesa belongs. While Keith (1921:115) and M a t i l a l (1959:306) assign him to the f i r s t , I n g a l l s (1951:32, fn 16) assigns him to the second. The former view i s the more usual. 9 The other terms generally used f o r 'upamana' are 'comparison' and 'analogy'. But ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ' i s the most s u i t a b l e of the three, though even i t does not capture the exact sense of 'upamana'. Cf In g a l l s 1951:29, fn 6. 103 or testimony (sabda). $3.5 I t i s to be noted that the NNs trea t perception, inference, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and testimony as the means of knowledge (or true cogni-tion) only, and not of f a l s e cognition. Not only etymology,^ but also 12 a long t r a d i t i o n beginning with Gautama favours such treatment. This 10 yathdrthdnubhavas caturvidhah pratyaksdnumity upamiti-sdbda-bheddt. tat-karanam api caturvidham pratyaksdnvmdnopamdna-sdbda-bheddt. "True cognition i s of four types: perceptual, < i n f e r e n t i a l , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a l CandJ ve r b a l . I t s instrumental cause also i s of four types: perception, inference, i d e n t i f i -cation Hand] testimony". TS 36. Annambhatta divides cognition (jrldnaj into two s o r t s : those derived from memory (smrti) and those derived from apprehenson (anubhava or anubhuti). He divides only the l a t t e r i n t o true (yathdrtha) and f a l s e (ayathdrtha), and l i m i t s the word 'pramd' to true apprehension (yathdrthdnubhava) (fn 1.2). But he also says that even memory i s of two kinds, true and f a l s e (TS 65), and that true memory r e s u l t s from an e a r l i e r true apprehension. The same i s the case with f a l s e memory mutatis mutandis. That i s , according to him, the truth-value of memory i s the same as the corresponding apprehension. This seems a c t u a l l y to take away the ground f o r l i m i t i n g the pramd-apvamd d i s t i n c t i o n to apprehension only. Visvanatha therefore, while d i v i d i n g cognition i n t o anubhuti and smrti (BP 51) yet says: . . . apramd ca pramd ceti jrldnam dvividham isyate. "Cognition i s s a i d to be of two sorts namely, true and f a l s e " (BP 126). I have followed Visvanatha and used 'pramd' f o r any true cognition what-ever, whether apprehension or memory, and 'apramd' for any f a l s e cogni-t i o n whatever. "'"'''Words l i k e 'prama't 'pramana' and 'prameya' come from the same root, 'pra + ma'3 'to know'. Since 'prama' means true cognition, 'pramana' must also mean a means of knowledge. 12 pratyaksdnumdnopamdna-sabdah pramdndni. "Perception, inference, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n [and] testimony are the means of knowledge". NS 1.1.3. yathdrthdnubhavah prama. tat-sadhanam pramanam. "True cognition i s knowledge. I t s instrument i s the means of knowledge". Udayana (Tdtparya-parisuadhi) c i t e d i n Radhakrishnan 1927:122. 104 r e s t r i c t i o n of perception etc., i s rather odd since these can y i e l d f a l s e cognitions as w e l l as true ones. Authors l i k e Athalye (211), therefore, suggest that they should be extended to apply to f a l s e cognitions as w e l l (cf In g a l l s 1951:30-31, fn 11). This suggestion, though eminently sensible otherwise, i s not, on the whole, f a i t h f u l to the Nn texts. There are, however, two considerations which seem at f i r s t sight to point i n the d i r e c t i o n of Athalye's suggestion, namely: (1) the d e f i n i t i o n s of a l l the means of knowledge (except, perhaps, testimony), taken by themselves, are wide enough to apply to f a l s e cognitions as w e l l (cf TS 42, 44, 58-59). (2) Visvanatha a f t e r d i v i d i n g a l l cognitions i n t o apprehension (anubhuti) and memory (smr-ti), sub-divides the former i n t o perceptual, i n f e r e n t i a l , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a l , and verbal (BP 51-52). He then says that perception etc., are the means of these four types of cognitions r e s p e c t i v e l y (SM 51). Since, according to t h i s d i v i s i o n , apprehension can be e i t h e r true or f a l s e i t follows that the four means can give r i s e to f a l s e cognitions as w e l l . But, on c l o s e r examination, both these considerations turned out to be of not much help. As f o r (1), though the d e f i n i t i o n s taken by themselves are indeed wide enough to cover f a l s e cognitions, both the context and the sequential treatment customarily followed i n the Nn texts i n d i c a t e that they are l i m i t e d to true cognitions. As f o r (2), Visvanatha himself l a t e r modifies h i s p o s i t i o n by saying that perception etc., are 13 intended as means of true cognition only. 13 yatharthanidihava-kavanasya-tva prcananatvena viviksitatvdt. "Because the instrumental cause of true cognitions only i s intended as pramana". (SM 135). 105 $3.6 The Nn view that knowledge i s a non-eternal e n t i t y subject to causation seems to contradict what I have sa i d about cognition e a r l i e r . I have maintained ($$ 1.5-6) that a cognition according to the NNs i s an abstract e n t i t y e t e r n a l , and independent i n p r i n c i p l e of l i n g u i s t i c expression. I f knowledge i s true cognition, i t must be et e r n a l and uncaused; there cannot be any pramanas. The c o n t r a d i c t i o n , however, i s only apparent. I t a r i s e s from the fa c t that the NNs use terms l i k e 'knowledge' (prama.) and 'cognition' (jriana, buddhi) sometimes i n a psychological sense and sometimes i n a l o g i c a l sense and often v a c i l a t e between the two senses. In the psy-c h o l o g i c a l sense, 'cognition' means a process, or something occurring i n one's mind. In the l o g i c a l sense, i t means a pr o p o s i t i o n i n the Fregean sense. A cognition i n the psychological sense i s , of course, noneternal and subject to causation, but not so i n i t s l o g i c a l sense. Since I am using 'cognition' only i n the l o g i c a l (Fregean) sense ($$ 1.3, 1.6, 1.11) there i s r e a l l y no c o n t r a d i c t i o n involved i n my account of cognition. $ 3.7 The Nn theory of inference may now be taken up. The NNs usually define (formally v a l i d ) inference as the instrumental cause of the | i n f e r e n t i a l conclusion] (see Convention D). | I n f e r e n t i a l conclusion|, 14 anumiti-kavanam anumanam . . . (TS 44). . . . anumitih. tat-kararnam anvmanam (TC 2.2). See Keith (1921: * * 111, fn 1) f o r references to some other texts on t h i s point. Keith (1921:111) says, "Inference i n the normal d e f i n i t i o n of the modern school i s the proximate cause of the i n f e r e n t i a l judgment or 1 0 6 i n turn, i s defined as that cognition which i s born of some other cogni-t i o n , namely, 'consideration' (paramarsa).^ The explanation of 'consider-a t i o n ' w i l l be given l a t e r ($$ 4.20-23), but i t may be noticed now that the NNs use two d i s t i n c t terms 'anumana' and 'anumiti' and these roughly correspond r e s p e c t i v e l y to what, i n contemporary l o g i c , are regarded as inference and the conclusion of an inference. They need, therefore, to be kept apart, though sometimes 'inference' i s used i n d i f f e r e n t l y as an knowledge (anumiti)". While the NNs accept t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , they also say e i t h e r (a) that pervasion (vyapti) i s the instrumental cause of |conclusion! (e.g., BP 66; SM 52); or (b) that 'consideration' (paramarsa) i s such (e.g., TS 47). These two views which r e f l e c t the controversy discussed above about the nature of karana, c o n f l i c t with the d e f i n i t i o n of inference as the instrumental cause of |conclusion!• F° r> a s I argue ($$ 3.12-16), that d e f i n i t i o n i s best understood as saying that inference i s the set of four cognitions ( a l l of which the NNs consider necessary) one of which l o g i c a l l y follows from the rest (see fn 3.23). I avoid the c o n f l i c t by regarding (a) and (b) simply as the Nn ways of emphasis-ing the importance of c e r t a i n elements of inference for n o n - l o g i c a l reasons. Uddyotakara says that though anumana includes a l l the causal elements necessary for the |conclusion|, i t i s most appropriately i d e n t i -f i e d with the l a s t element because of the l a t t e r ' s proximity to the |conclusion! (Ingalls 1951:32-33, fn 21). This perhaps explains to some extent why 'consideration' i s regarded as karana, but leaves the character-i s a t i o n of pervasion as cause s t i l l b a f f l i n g . I t should be noted, however, that 'consideration' can by i t s e l f y i e l d the |conclusion|, and a fortiori can do so together with pervasion (of which i t i s regarded as the operation by the advocates of (b)) ($ 4.21). 15 paramaria-janym jflanam anumitih . . . (TS 44; SM 52). vyapti-viSista-paksadharmata.-jnana-janyam jTfimam anumitih (TC 2.2). See also Chatterjee 1950:233. That inference i s cognition born of some other cognition means that the Nn theory of inference excludes t r i v i a l inferences where a sentence follows e i t h e r from (the set c o n s i s t i n g of) i t s e l f (e.g., 'p .*. p ' ) ; or from a sentence of which i t alone i s a part (e.g., 'p & p .'. p ' ) . But see Potter 1963:75. 107 equivalent of e i t h e r . $3.8 In order to understand f u l l y the implications of the Nn d e f i n i t i o n of inference i n terms of instrumental cause (karana), i t w i l l be necessary to note the d i s t i n c t i o n the NNs make between two sorts of inference. These are inference for oneself ( svarthanumana) (IS) and inference f o r others (pararthanumana) (10). IS i s s a i d to occur when one i n f e r s something without expressing the inference i n language. When IS i s expressed i n language so that others could follow i t , i t i s s a i d to become 10. ($$ 3.20-22). Annambhatta describes IS and 10 s u c c i n c t l y : • • • . . . CinferenceD for oneself i s the cause of one's own [ i n f e r e n t i a l conclusion|, as Cwhen a man] having himself understood by frequent observation the pervasion that where there i s smoke there i s f i r e as i n a kitchen, on approaching a mountain and suspecting f i r e on i t and seeing smoke on i t , remembers the i n v a r i a b l e concomitance that where there i s smoke there i s f i r e . A f t e r that, the cognition i s produced that t h i s mountain possesses smoke which i s pervaded by f i r e . This very Ccognition3 i s called'consideration'. From i t a r i s e s the cognition, which i s t h e [ i n f e r e n t i a l conclusion], that the mountain has f i r e . This CisH inference f o r oneself. When, however, a f t e r i n f e r r i n g f i r e from smoke oneself, Cone! employs the five-membered sentence ( i . e . the syllogism) f o r the understanding of others, i t i s inference f o r others; as f o r example, I t r a n s l a t e 'anumiti' with '|conclusion|' or ' [ i n f e r e n t i a l con-c l u s i o n ! ' (Convention D). S t r i c t l y speaking, '|conclusion!' i s not an accurate rendering of 'anumiti', since, according to the NNs, a con-c l u s i o n can be a conclusion also of the t h i r d means of knowledge, namely, ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ' (upamana). However, since I am concerned i n t h i s thesis only with inference, there i s no r i s k of confusion. I t r a n s l a t e 'anurnana' as 'inference' despite the f a c t that i n E n g l i s h i t usually names a set of sentences, while i t s Sanskrit counter-part names, as I maintain ($$ 3.20-24), a set of cognitions. I could f i n d no b e t t e r word. 108 "The mountain has f i r e , because i t has smoke. Whatever has smoke has f i r e , f o r instance, a kitchen. And t h i s [mountain! i s CalsoD l i k e i t . Therefore, [ t h i s i s3 l i k e i t . . . (TS 45). $ 3.9 Let me c a l l the examples of IS and 10 i n Annambhatta 1s account r e s p e c t i v e l y as IS^ and 10j. 10^, i t i s clear, consists of f i v e elements which, to repeat, are: 10^ 1. The mountain has f i r e ( i . e . , there i s f i r e on the mountain) 2. Because i t has smoke ( l i t . because of smoke) 3. Whatever has smoke has f i r e , e.g., a kitchen 4. And t h i s i s l i k e i t 18 5. Therefore, t h i s i s l i k e i t . The account of IS and 10 given here by Annambhatta i s the same as that of Gangesa (Vidyabhusana 1921:435). The d i s t i n c t i o n between IS and 10 i s not present e i t h e r i n Gautama or i n Kanada. I t i s f i r s t introduced i n the Nyaya-Vaisesika l i t e r a t u r e by Prasastapada who, Keith (1921:106-7) maintains, borrowed i t from Dignaga. Randle (1930:160-1), however, holds that the d i s t i n c -t i o n i s Prasastapada's own c r e a t i o n . 18 (1) parvato vahniman. (2) dhumat. (3) yo yo dhumavan sa sa vahniman yatha mahdnasah. (4) tatha cayam. (5) tasmat tathd. (2) and (3) are also expressed r e s p e c t i v e l y as i _ i (2) dhumavattvdt ("Because [ i t ] posseses smoke"); and (3) yatra yatra dhumas t a t r a t a t r a vahnih. yatha mahanasah. ("Wherever there i s smoke, there i s f i r e as i n a k i t c h e n " ) . t i But the d i f f e r e n c e between (2) and (2) and that between (3) and (3) i s merely v e r b a l (cf Kitagawa 1965:19, fn 3). Also, 10 i s quite often 109 The f i v e members of 10 ^  are. c a l l e d r e s p e c t i v e l y , thesis (pratijfla), 19 -'reason' (hetu), 'example' (udaharana). ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' (upanaya), and conclusion (nigamana). 'Application' and conclusion are us u a l l y , as i n 10^ , stated e l l i p t i c a l l y . When f u l l y stated, conclusion (minus the word 'therefore' (tasmat)) becomes i d e n t i c a l with t h e s i s , and 'ap p l i c a t i o n ' reads as: The h i l l has smoke which i s pervaded ( i n v a r i a b l y accompanied) by f i r e . needs to be reformulated as: The mountain has f i r e Because i t has smoke Whatever has smoke has f i r e , e.g., a kitchen This mountain has smoke which i s pervaded by f i r e 20 Therefore, the mountain has f i r e . 10^, therefore, 10 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. expressed as, f o r example, parvato vahniman dhumat ("The mountain has f i r e because of smoke"). But t h i s form i s enthymematic, and consists of only pratijrld and hetu; the other three sentences are to be supplied. The elements of JC 7 are, s t r i c t l y speaking, not sentences, but cognitions as i s argued below i n $$ 3.20-22. 19 Quotes i n such cases are intended to i n d i c a t e that the enclosed expressions are used i n a rather unusual way. See Convention C. 20 The reasons dis c a r d i n g (4) and (5) of TCL i n favour of (4) and (5) of I0o are discussed i n $$ 4.25-29. 110 $ 3.10 The examples IS^ and 10^ of the two sorts of inference are paradigmatic. In the l i g h t of them, what sense can one make of the Nn d e f i n i t i o n that inference i s the instrumental cause of the |conclusion|? The question hinges on how the c r u c i a l expression 'instrumental cause' (karana) i s to be interpreted. The usual p r a c t i c e among the modern i n t e r p r e t e r s of Nyaya i s to take i t i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l sense of a 21 thought-process, and there i s some tex t u a l basis f o r t h e i r doing so. The account of IS given f o r instance by Annambhatta and Gangesa seems, i f taken l i t e r a l l y , to be merely a d e s c r i p t i o n of what happens i n one's mind. I t i s , i n other words, an account of the mental a c t i v i t y whose end-result i s the conclusion. The a c t i v i t y and the conclusion, thus, seem to be r e l a t e d as cause and e f f e c t . Again, j u s t as inference i s s a i d to be the (instrumental) cause of the | i n f e r e n t i a l conclusion|, perception i s s a i d to be the cause of the perceptual cognition. And the account given of perception i s c l e a r l y p s y c h o l o g i c a l . I t i s s a i d to be the r e s u l t 22 of the process by which the senses come i n t o contact with t h e i r object. 21 E.g., Athalye:253; Randle 1930:160; Keith:112-13; I n g a l l s 1951:33; Datta 1960:217; Schayer 1933:249. 22 indriya-samnikarsa-janyam jHanam pratyaksam (TS 42; see also TS 43 BP 59). Vatsyayana, whom the NNs follow i n t h i s regard, describes the process of perception thus: atmd manasd samyujyate mana indriyena indriyam artheneti. "The s e l f comes i n t o contact with the mind, the mind with the sense, the sense with the object". 11 Bh 1.1.4 c i t e d i n Athalye: 212. See also Keith 1921:68. In t h i s process the contact of the s e l f with the mind i s common to a l l I l l Evidence such as t h i s favours taking 'instrumental cause' i n i t s s t r i c t and l i t e r a l ( i . e . , psychological) sense. $ 3.11 However, taking 'instrumental cause' i n a psychological sense would render the Nn theory of inference as a whole nonsensical. For, f i r s t l y , a study of p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes, whatever i t s importance elsewhere, has at best only a minor r o l e i n l o g i c . Formal l o g i c aims at a b s tracting i t s subject-matter as much from persons thinking i t as from the s p e c i a l content which may happen to be associated with i t . Secondly, one cannot make sense, on t h i s view of 'instrumental cause 1, of the Nn view that 10 i s a l i n g u i s t i c expression of IS ($ 3.8), nor indeed of the f a c t that the term 'cause' i s applicable i n the case of 10. The elements of 10 are sentences expressing cognitions. They are stated i n i s o l a t i o n of persons thinking them, and there i s nothing p s y c h o l o g i c a l about them. The set of premises, therefore, cannot be s a i d l i t e r a l l y to cause the conclusion. Besides, as I have held ($$ 1.5-6) cognitions, according to the NNs, are e t e r n a l e n t i t i e s , and as such not subject to causation. T h i r d l y , the conclusion i s already an element i n 10, and the r e l a t i o n between the two i s that of a set and i t s member. A types of cognition. Only the contact of the sense with the object i s p e c u l i a r to perception. Though both Visvanatha (BP 58-59) and Annambhatta (TS 43) regard a sense as the instrumental cause and contact with object as i t s operation, those NNs who i d e n t i f y the instrumental cause with operation would regard sense-object contact as the karana of pratyaksa. E.g., NK (s.v. karanam) a t t r i b u t e s to Nilakantha the remark, "pratyaksa indriya-samnikarsah karanam". 112 set, i n today's language, can hardly be sa i d to cause i t s member. F i n a l l y , i f the set of premises i s taken to cause the conclusion, i t would mean that the same set of premises produces the same conclusion always as, according to the doctrine of c a u s a l i t y , the same cause i s supposed to produce the same e f f e c t always. However, i t i s a common-place i n contemporary l o g i c that the same set of premises can y i e l d , 23 i n p r i n c i p l e , an i n f i n i t e number of conclusions. These considerations are enough to show that i t w i l l not do to 24 take 'instrumental cause' (karana) i n the psychological sense. 23 - • • Aklujkar thinks that the word 'anumana' as used i n "anum-vti-karanam anumdnam", and as used i n 'svarthanumana' and 'pararthanumana' does not mean the same. In the former case i t means a s p e c i f i c i n s t r u -mental cause (which can be e i t h e r pervasion ($$ 4.3-13, fn 5.4) or 'consideration' ($$ 4.20-23)). In the l a t t e r case, i t means the process of inference, and re f e r s c o l l e c t i v e l y to a l l the stages of inference (cp Ingalls 1951:32-33). However, I do not share Aklujkar's view because the NNs c l e a r l y say that svarthanumana i s _ t h e cause (hetu) of svarthanumiti, j u s t as they say that anumana i n general i s the cause (karana) of anumiti. ('Hetu' i n t h i s context can only mean karana, since i t obviously cannot mean any of the remaining v a r i e t i e s of cause recognised by the NNs, namely, samavayi, asamavayi, and sadharana nimitta). This shows that f o r the NNs the r e l a t i o n of anumiti to i t s premises i s the same i n e i t h e r case; That i s , i n e i t h e r case, the word 'anumana' has the same sense, namely, the sense (as I argue) of a set of cognitions one of which l o g i c a l l y follows f rom the r e s t . The NNs hold that a l l the elements of an inference are necessary ($ 3.21). When, therefore, they also say that pervasion (together with 'consideration' as i t s operation) alone (BP 66), or 'consideration' alone (TS 47) i s the cause (karana) of anumiti, they presumably intend to emphasise a c e r t a i n element because of no n - l o g i c a l reasons ( i . e . , because of t h e i r s p e c i a l view of c a u s a l i t y , e s p e c i a l l y of karana as r e q u i r i n g or not r e q u i r i n g operation) (cf Ingalls 1951:29-30). See fns 3.14 and 2.7. 24 It i s presumably because of the i r r e l e v a n c e of the psycho-l o g i c a l sense of inference to l o g i c that I n g a l l s choses to understand by 'inference' only what i s i n f e r r e d . He says (1951:29, fn 5) , " . .' . By inference, I s h a l l mean that which i s i n f e r r e d , not the act of i n f e r r i n g " . But t h i s i s eit h e r (a) saying that anumana i s the same as anumiti which i s of course, obviously against the texts; or (b) ignoring 'anumana' 113 $3.12 Since taking 'instrumental cause' i n a psy c h o l o g i c a l sense leads to the d i f f i c u l t i e s noted above, i t might be w e l l to see i f an a l t e r n a t i v e way can be found of understanding i t . The clue to an a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n l i e s i n considering the s p i r i t rather than the l e t t e r of the Nn c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n of IS. The i n t e n t of t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n , though undoubtedly couched i n a psy c h o l o g i c a l language, should, I think, be taken as purely l o g i c a l . What IS^ , f o r instance, should be taken to convey i s that the conclusion, namely the cognition that the mountain has f i r e l o g i c a l l y follows from (the set of) c e r t a i n other cognitions which, though, are not recognisable as such because of t h e i r p s y c h o l o g i c a l garb. In order to br i n g out t h e i r true character, therefore, IS^ i s more appropriately formulated as: ISg (1) |The mountain has smoke| (2) |whatever has smoke has f i r e , e.g., a kitchen| (3) |The mountain has smoke which i s pervaded by f i r e | (4) |Therefore, the mountain has f i r e | . Thus represented, IS i s seen to be a set of cognitions r e l a t e d i n a c e r t a i n way and the view that 10 i s the l i n g u i s t i c expression of IS becomes r e a d i l y i n t e l l i g i b l e . For, there i s no longer the d i f f i c u l t y altogether and regarding only 'anumiti' as inference. But t h i s use of 'inference', though an escape from the psychological sense, i s hardly relevant to the l o g i c i a n . The l o g i c i a n i s i n t e r e s t e d not merely i n a conclusion, but also i n the premises that lead to i t . In p r a c t i c e , however, I n g a l l s takes inference as c o n s i s t i n g of both premises and conclusion (1951:33, 36). 114 that the r e l a t i o n between the premises and the conclusion, while ps y c h o l o g i c a l i n IS, i s l o g i c a l i n 10. What i s at is s u e i n both i s a purely l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n . $ 3.13 I f what i s at issue i s fundamentally a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n i n the case of both IS and 10, the NNs' use of the term 'cause' i n r e l a t i o n to them needs an explanation. The explanation l i e s b a s i c a l l y i n the f a c t that the NNs do not make the important d i s t i n c t i o n between cause and reason (or ground). This i s in d i c a t e d by the f a c t that the r e l a t i o n 25 between substance and q u a l i t i e s i s regarded as causal ($ 3.1), while i t i s c l o s e r to that between ground and consequent f a m i l i a r i n t r a d i t i o n a l metaphysics. Again, the same word 'hetu' i s used f o r both reason and cause. I t i s i n v a r i a b l y used by the NNs to r e f e r to the second sentence 26 i n t h e i r s y l l o g i s m (e.g., 10^ and 10^). As thus used i t can only mean reason, and i s i n v a r i a b l y t r a n s l a t e d as 'reason' by modern i n t e r p r e t e r s 27 of the Nyaya system. But i t i s also used to r e f e r to a cause. Further-more, p h y s i c a l analogies are sometimes given to i l l u s t r a t e the manner i n which the conclusion of an inference follows from i t s premises. I t i s s a i d , f o r instance, that j u s t as the c l o t h r e s u l t s from the movement of 25 The NNs also say, of course, that a substance i s the locus or substratum of q u a l i t i e s ($$ 0.19, 2.21). 26 Although 10g has f i v e members, that i t s structure i s e s s e n t i a l l y s y l l o g i s t i c ( in the sense of t r a d i t i o n a l western l o g i c ) should be obvious. See $ 4.1. 27 The d i s t i n c t i o n between cause (karaka-hetu) and reason (jflapaka-hetu) was indeed known i n the Indian t r a d i t i o n (see Agni-purana (Anandasram s e r i e s No 41), Ch 344, verses 29-30; Dandin: Kdvyddarsa (ed 115 the loom, so does the conclusion from i t s premises (Athalye:233) . The use of the same word i n two d i s t i n c t senses does not by i t s e l f mean that the NNs do not d i s t i n g u i s h between those senses. But i t does add to other evidence, noted above, for saying that the NNs switch back 27 and f o r t h between them. Even i n the framework of t h e i r own metaphysics, i t i s necessary f o r the NNs to d i s t i n g u i s h between them. For, the causal r e l a t i o n i s , according to them, such that what are caused can only be spatio-temporally l i m i t e d , though t h e i r causes need not be so l i m i t e d (fn 3.1). A r e l a t i o n i n v o l v i n g reason on the other hand, i s a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n and has no such l i m i t a t i o n . In f a c t , one can even say that i t can obtain only between cognitions, and therefore i s , l i k e them, timeless. $ 3.14 Because the NNs confuse the psychological and the l o g i c a l senses of the word 'cause', the fa c t that they use 'instrumental cause' (karana) i n a c l e a r l y psychological sense i n r e l a t i o n to perception ($ 3.10) cannot be good evidence for saying that they must be using i t s i m i l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n to inference. The considerations adduced above, on the contrary, show that the NNs' i n t e n t i o n i s best served by taking i t i n a l o g i c a l sense. $ 3.15 I f 'instrumental cause' i s taken i n a l o g i c a l sense, there are, prima faciey two p l a u s i b l e ways of understanding the Nn d e f i n i t i o n that V Narayana Ayyar, 1952), Ch 2, verse 235); and the word 'karana' was more often used for 'cause', while 'hetu' was more often used f o r 'reason'. But the NNs are unmindful of the d i s t i n c t i o n at l e a s t i n the present context, and use 'karana' and 'hetu' interchangeably. See, for example, SM 137; BP 17; TS 45.' 116 inference i s the instrumental cause of [ i n f e r e n t i a l conclusion). I t could be taken to mean e i t h e r : (a) that the conclusion l o g i c a l l y follows from the premises, and i s thus 'born o f or 'produced' by them; or (b) that the conclusion i n some sense r e s u l t s from the underlying inference-form. A l t e r n a t i v e (a) e n t a i l s i d e n t i f y i n g inference with i t s premises alone. Such i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s ruled out not only by contemporary usage, but also by the usage of the NNs themselves. The instances of IS and 10 axe, f o r the NNs, inferences and they c l e a r l y include the con-c l u s i o n as w e l l . Besides, f o r the NNs the conclusion cannot be a reason f o r i t s e l f , i . e . , cannot be counted as i t s own premise (fn 3.15). A l t e r n a t i v e (b), therefore, seems to be the more promising. $ 3.16 An inference-form i s simply the schema of any concrete inference and i s a device for a t t a i n i n g g e n e r a l i t y . I t enables one to t a l k i n d i f f e r e n t l y of any one of a whole range of inferences. I t consists of matrices which, when appropriate s u b s t i t u t i o n s are made f o r t h e i r s e n t e n t i a l , c l a s s or i n d i v i d u a l l e t t e r s , convert i n t o a c t u a l sentences, and the inference-form which consists of them converts i n t o an a c t u a l 28 inference. It can be conceived as an embodiment of the formal conditions of whole ranges of arguments. An inference-form can, therefore, be compared to an apparatus with a c e r t a i n input and a c e r t a i n output. The 2 8 The word 'matrix' i s used i n the sense of Mates (1965:14). I t i s a purely formal expression " b u i l t up out of s o - c a l l e d l o g i c a l words . . . together with s e n t e n t i a l , class or i n d i v i d u a l l e t t e r s , and such that the r e s u l t of replacing the l e t t e r s by the appropriate kinds of expressions i s a sentence". 117 premises are the input, the conclusion the output. Thus viewed, an inference-form may be s a i d to 'produce' or 'cause' the conclusion of an inference which i n s t a n t i a t e s that form. I suggest that the Nn d e f i n i t i o n that inference i s the i n s t r u -mental cause of the | i n f e r e n t i a l conclusion! should be understood i n the l i g h t of the notion of an inference-form. That i s , i n the context of t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , 'inference' (anumana) i s to be taken to mean an i n f e r -ence-form, rather than an actual inference. Thus conceived, i t i s a l o g i c a l , not a p s y c h o l o g i c a l , apparatus which produces the conclusion. It can, therefore, be s a i d to be a means or an instrument (karana) f o r the conclusion. In t h i s way, the use of 'karana' i n the Nn d e f i n i t i o n i s made i n t e l l i g i b l e . Whatever the r e l a t i o n between the inference-form and the conclusion r e s u l t i n g from i t , i t c e r t a i n l y i s not causal. I t i s a l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n and resembles to some extent the r e l a t i o n between ground and consequent. The two, however, are not i d e n t i c a l , since the r e l a t i o n between ground and consequent i s entailment and holds between sentences, while the l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n here i n question i s between an inference-form and a conclusion. The inference-form cannot be s a i d to e n t a i l the conclusion of any of i t s instances. $ 3.17 There i s no doubt that the NNs, while d e f i n i n g 'inference', consciously use 'karana' (instrumental cause) i n what according to them i s c l e a r l y a psychological or causal sense. They br i n g a l l the para-phernalia of t h e i r theory of c a u s a l i t y to bear upon t h e i r direct d i s c u s s i o n of inference. They us u a l l y , as i n TS, state t h e i r theory of c a u s a l i t y 118 as a prelude to t h e i r theory of the means of knowledge i n c l u d i n g inference. However, t h e i r conception of cause i s much wider than ours and embraces at l e a s t two d i s t i n c t senses, the l o g i c a l and the psycho-l o g i c a l , which the NNs often confuse. My attempt above has been to show how a good sense can be made of t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of inference, avoiding t h e i r confusions and capturing t h e i r unformulated i n s i g h t s . $ 3.18 My suggestion that 'inference' as i t occurs i n the Nn d e f i n i t i o n should be understood to mean an inference-form does not, I emphasise, mean that the NNs themselves d i s t i n g u i s h between an inference and an inference-form. In f a c t , they are unaware of the use of v a r i a b l e s (or other s i m i l a r devices) ($ 2.25), and have no way of separating the two. I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g , therefore, that they use the same word 'inference' (anumana) f o r both. Lacking the use of v a r i a b l e s , the NNs have l i t t l e to say d i r e c t l y and e x p l i c i t l y about an inference-form. But t h e i r actual p r a c t i c e implies that they were vaguely aware of i t . For instance t h e i r theory of inference, of the elements of inference, of the c o n s t i t u -ents of these elements ($ 4.1) i s quite general, and so i s t h e i r theory of f a l l a c i e s ($ 6.9-13). This g e n e r a l i t y implies a b s t r a c t i o n and would not be po s s i b l e without some awareness, of the notion of an inference-form. Again, the NNs' use of examples i s often paradigmatic ($ 2.25), designed to br i n g out the formal features of an inference. Though such a use can never be a su b s t i t u t e for the use of v a r i a b l e s , and can have only a l i m i t e d success i n the attainment of g e n e r a l i t y , i t nevertheless shows that an actual inference has a double r o l e to play: to draw 119 a t t e n t i o n to i t s s p e c i f i c or unique character as determined by i t s content, and to represent the formal conditions governing i t . In other words, the only way a v a i l a b l e to the NNs of r e f e r r i n g to an inference-form i s through an inference. 'Anumana', therefore, i s , according to the NNs, always an i n f e r e n c e — a set of cognitions r e l a t e d i n a c e r t a i n way—despite i t s dual r o l e . Hence, I f e e l I am j u s t i f i e d i n t r a n s l a t i n g i t as such. $ 3.19 My motive behind t h i s somewhat d e t a i l e d examination of the NNs1 c r y p t i c remark "anumanam anumiti-karanam" ($ 3.7), was to f i n d out the true Nn answer to the question "What i s inference?". My account of that answer shows that of the four senses of 'inference' to be found i n English—namely, (1) the act of i n f e r r i n g , (2) the r e s u l t of i n f e r r i n g , (3) a set of sentences (or cognitions) one of which i s l o g i c a l l y 29 r e l a t e d to the rest i n a c e r t a i n way, and (4) inference-form—only the l a s t two are relevant to the Nn theory of inference, and perhaps, f o r that matter, to any theory of inference at a l l . The common p r a c t i c e among modern i n t e r p r e t e r s of Nyaya of a t t r i b u t i n g the f i r s t or the second sense to the NNs (fns 3.21, 3.24) while t r y i n g to understand t h e i r logical theory, therefore, seems to me on the whole mistaken. $ 3.20 My proposal that inference (anumana) should be taken as a set of cognitions (rather than sentences) standing i n a c e r t a i n l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n I t w i l l not do to say: "one of which i s conclusively supported by the r e s t " , since t h i s i s not true of a l l (deductive) inferences. E.g., "Grass i s green .'. 2 + 2 = 4" or "p & ^ p .' . r " . 120 c a l l s f o r an explanation, since i n today's l o g i c i t i s standard usage to take inference as a set of sentences. The explanation l i e s i n what, according to the NNs, i s the precise nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between IS and 10. E a r l i e r ($ 3.8), I stated t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p by saying that 10 i s the l i n g u i s t i c expression of IS. I now wish to dwell a l i t t l e more on the evidence f o r my construing the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n t h i s way. The NNs say that 10 employs language, or more p r e c i s e l y , the five-membered sentence ($ 3.8), which by i m p l i c a t i o n suggests that IS does not. This i s so because, according to them, the purpose of IS i s to enable oneself to see how the conclusion follows from the premises. This purpose could be r e a l i s e d by means of cognitions themselves, and there i s no need, f o r words. The NNs t a l k of the elements of IS, therefore, as cognitions. Their normal manner of speaking i n l o g i c i s to say that one cognition (jflana) follows from ( l i t . 'caused by', 'produced by') another, not that one sentence follows from another. They say, f o r instance, that the |conclusion! (anumiti) i s born of 'consideration' (paramarsa), where both |conclusion! and 'consideration' are cognitions (TS 45). These considerations by themselves show that IS i s something n o n - U n g u i s t i c . This i s further confirmed even more emphatically when 30 i t i s s a i d , "JO i s l i n g u a l while IS i s c o g n i t i o n a l only". E x p e c i a l l y 30 pararthanumanam sabddtmakam; svarthanumanam tu jftanatmakam eva ( c i t e d i n Athalye:252). The author of these l i n e s i s a c t u a l l y the Buddhist l o g i c i a n Dharmottara; but the NNs are generally regarded as subscribing to t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s a -t i o n of IS. Cf NK s.v. pararthanumanam and svartham. S i v a d i t y a also says that IS i s i n terms of meaning (artharupatva), while 10 i s i n terms of words (sabdarupatva) (Keith 1921:123). 121 the word 'only', I think, leaves no doubt as to the non-linguistic character of IS. Moreover, I have maintained earlier ($$ 1.5-6) on independent evidence that; for the NNs a cognition is an abstract entity, independent in principle of any l i n g u i s t i c expression. IS, which con-sists of cognitions, therefore, must be non-linguistic. But as soon as i t i s l i n g u i s t i c a l l y expressed i t ceases to be IS and becomes 10. 10 then is IS l i n g u i s t i c a l l y expressed. $ 3.21 If, however, 10 is just the li n g u i s t i c expression of IS, both ought to have the same number of elements. But this apparently is not the case. IS'^, for example, has four elements ($ 3.12) while 10^ has five ($ 3.9). The NNs are silent as to why there i s this discrepancy. The discrepancy can be explained by saying that thesis and conclusion— which are both two tokens of the same type—of 10 are synonymous and express an identical cognition so that the number of cognitions involved in both IS and 10 is the same, namely, four. On this explanation, one of these two sentences i s superfluous and ought to be discarded. However, the NNs i n s i s t on the inclusion of a l l the five sentences (cf Randle 1930: 31 164-65). This d i f f i c u l t y i s overcome by saying that though the two sentences in question are oognitively synonymous, they are not synonymous "^^The number of sentences recognised as necessary for an i n -ference varies from school to school. For Buddhists i t is two (Stcherbatsky 1962a:279-80) and for the Mimamsakas and Vedantins i t is three. Vatsyayana even mentions an ancient school of Naiyayikas for whom the number was ten (Keith 1921:85-86; Athalye:272-73; Randle 1930: 161-62). 122 i n non-cognitive respects. For, the NNs assign a n o n - l o g i c a l or p s y c h o l o g i c a l function to thesis while the function of the remaining four remains purely l o g i c a l . They conceive the purpose of 10 as being more d i a l e c t i c a l than l o g i c a l . The purpose i s to convince another person of the truth of the conclusion given that of the premises. I t s r e a l i s a t i o n i s aided by s t a t i n g the conclusion f i r s t . Doing so would focus the a t t e n t i o n of the l i s t e n e r on the question at issue and create -. - 32 i n him a desire (akahksa) to solve i t . I f 10 allows room f o r non-l o g i c a l considerations and IS does not, my remark that 10 i s j u s t the l i n g u i s t i c expression of IS i s not, s t r i c t l y speaking, true. But i t i s true i f only l o g i c a l considerations are taken'into account. And l o g i c a l considerations alone are important f o r my purpose. Keith 1921:126; Athalye:LVII, 266; Radhakrishnan:1927:75. Cf Randle 193:163-67. In g a l l s (1951:33) holds that thesis and 'reason' are a s c r i p t s while the remaining three sentences of 10 are a s s e r t i o n s . He also says that a s s e r t i o n i s not necessary f o r IS thereby implying that IS consists only of a s c r i p t s . "An a s c r i p t " , he says, "merely associates a predicate with a subject or a r e l a t i o n with i t s terms, e.g., 'John's being r i c h ' . . . whereas an assertion (statement, proposition) asserts t h i s predicate . . . " . I t i s not c l e a r to me how the notions of a s c r i p t and a s s e r t i o n can help c l a r i f y the d i s t i n c t i o n between IS and 10, nor how they can explain the recurrence of the same expression as thesis and conclusion. Vatsyayana's remark which he invokes i n h i s support, namely, sambhavas tdvat pratijna. ("Thesis i s only something p o s s i b l e " ) , i s quite consistent with my view that thesis and conclusion express the same cognition. As a modality, p o s s i b i l i t y can belong only to sentences, and the NNs c l e a r l y say that thesis i s a sentence (or statement) (vakya). See NK s.v. pvatijrla. 123 $3.22 I f the l o g i c a l l y i r r e l e v a n t thesis i s eliminated, and s u i t a b l e 33 changes are made i n 'reason', IS and 10 w i l l have exactly the same elements and 10^, f o r instance, reduces to IS ^  The elements i n e i t h e r case are cognitions. There i s , of course, the d i f f e r e n c e that i n IS the cognitions and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s are d i r e c t l y 'grasped', while i n 10 they are grasped only through language. But t h i s makes no d i f f e r e n c e to what i s grasped. The l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e of both IS and 10 i s the same. There i s , therefore, no logical basis whatever for d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between the two (cf Keith 1921:123). The Nn preoccupation with the d i s t i n c t i o n can only be a t t r i b u t e d to t h e i r frequent i n a b i l i t y to separate psycho-l o g i c a l and l o g i c a l questions. $ 3.23 IS, as something d i r e c t l y 'grasped', i s completely p r i v a t e and cannot be the subject of i n q u i r y . S t r i c t l y speaking, even IS cannot 34 be s a i d to be an instance of IS, since i t i s represented i n language and as such i s r e a l l y an instance of 10. The elements of 10, l i k e those of IS, are, to repeat, cognitions. They are expressed by sentences. The NNs have two sets of names, one for the cognitions and the other f o r the sentences expressing them (TD 46). 'Pervasion' Cvyapti'), 'consid-e r a t i o n ' ('paramarsa') and '|conclusion!' ('anumiti') are the names of 33 — -The 'reason* (hetu) of 10 j, i t may be r e c a l l e d , i s "dhumat" ("Because i t has smoke"). I t ref e r s back to the thesis and i f the t h e s i s i s eliminated i t no longer i s i n t e l l i g i b l e . I t has to be replaced by a f u l l - f l e d g e d sentence, "ayarn parvatah dhumavan" ("This mountain has f i r e " ) . ISj i s a (m e t a l i n g u i s t i c ) description of IS^3 and, therefore, i s on a d i f f e r e n t l e v e l . 124 the second, t h i r d , and fourth cognitions r e s p e c t i v e l y i n the order i n which they are stated i n IS . The f i r s t cognition does not have a convenient name but i s usually described as the cognition that the subject has probans (paksa-dnarmata-jhana) ($ 4.2). I t must be emphasised that though 10 consists of f i v e sentences, i t has only four cognitions and i s more accurately represented by IS ^, T ' i e n a m e s °f the f i v e sentences are, as already noted ($ 3.9), ' t h e s i s ' ('pratijfia') 'reason' ('hetu'), 'example' ( 'udaharana', 'vyaptivakya') , ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' Cupanaya') and 'conclusion' ('nigamana') . The NNs are not always c a r e f u l to keep these two sets of names apart, and often use them i n -d i f f e r e n t l y to designate e i t h e r a cognition or the corresponding sentence. This i s e s p e c i a l l y true of 'reason' and 'pervasion'. There i s no d i s t i n c t cognition corresponding to t h e s i s , since as I have maintained, i t i s co g n i t i v e l y synonymous with conclusion which expresses |conclusion|. Therefore, while a l l other names of sentences have p a r a l l e l names (or desc r i p t i o n s ) naming cognitions, thesis can have no such p a r a l l e l . $3.24 I think I have now explained why f o r the NNs inference i s a set of cognitions. I have done so with reference to what I consider to be the true nature of the d i s t i n c t i o n between IS and 10, That d i s t i n c t i o n has appeared rather b a f f l i n g to modern i n t e r p r e t e r s of Nyaya (cp Schayer 1933:249), and I be l i e v e my account makes i t at l e a s t i n t e l l i g i b l e . I t 35 also makes i n t e l l i g i b l e the Nn b e l i e f i n the s u p e r i o r i t y of IS over 10. This b e l i e f has been frequently remarked upon by modern w r i t e r s . See, f o r instance, Ingalls (1951:33), Keith (1921:95, 122), Athalye: 252 and Hirianna (1932:255-56). 125 There are, I think, two reasons f o r t h i s b e l i e f . F i r s t l y , there i s the fa c t that IS alone (as I represent i t ) i s governed by purely l o g i c a l considerations. I t alone can, therefore, give the true l o g i c a l s t r u c -ture, while 10, v i t i a t e d as i t i s by n o n - l o g i c a l considerations cannot. Secondly, IS i s i n terms of cognitions themselves which can be d i r e c t l y 'grasped' and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t u i t e d . There i s no i n t e r -vention of a medium—language i n t h i s case—between the thinker and the cognitions which he 'grasps'. In 10, on the other hand the cognitions have to be understood i n d i r e c t l y through language. The NNs rate d i r e c t grasping much higher than grasping through language (saksatkara TD 81). This i s i n l i n e with t h e i r — i n f a c t , of most Indian p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools—metaphysical b e l i e f that f i n a l t r u t h i s attained through d i r e c t i n t u i t i o n rather than through l i n g u i s t i c media. CHAPTER IV THE ELEMENTS OF INFERENCE $ 4 . 1 For the NNs inference i n i t s s t r i c t l o g i c a l sense i s , as shown i n $$ 3.7-24, a set of cognitions one of which stands i n a c e r t a i n l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n to the r e s t . One, and the most usual, form of i t i s represented by 10^. But 10^, although i t involves f i v e sentences, c o n s i s t s , as noted above ($$ 3.21-22), only of four cognitions, and i s more accurately represented as IS^. The NNs give an account of the l o g i c a l character of each of these four cognitions, and t h e i r account depends on three b a s i c notions, namely, those of subject (paksa), probans (sadhana), and probandum (sadhya). According to the NNs, subject i s the subject of inference. I t i s the e n t i t y * about which an inference i s drawn. Probandum i s the e n t i t y which i s i n f e r r e d or proved about the 2 subject. Probans i s the e n t i t y that mediates, as i t were, between subject and probandum, and i s 'instrumental' i n the d e r i v a t i o n of the |conclusion! from the premises. In lO^, for example, the mountain i s "*See fn 0.22 f o r the wide sense i n which I use the word ' e n t i t y ' . See a l s o Convention B. 2 anumiti-vidheyatvam . . . sadhyatvam. "The property of being probandum ( i s ) . . . the property of being the object of j i n f e r e n t i a l conclusion!". NK s.v. sddhyatd. 3 Hence, i t gets i t s name 'sadhana', which l i t e r a l l y means means or instrument. I t s other names are: 'lihga' ('mark1, 'sign') and 'hetu' 127 the subject, fire is the probandum, and smoke is the probans. The Nn notions of subject, probandum, and probans are reminiscent respectively 4 of the minor, major and middle terms of traditional—but not Aristotle's — l o g i c . However, they are not the same as the latter. The latter are expressions while the former are, according to the NNs, usually non-li n g u i s t i c entities. The subject of inference i s , according to the NNs, always an individual. It i s named by a singular term, and is necessarily the qualificand of the cognition in which i t occurs.Probans and probandum, on the other hand, are usually regarded by modern writers^ as properties ($ 2.30). This would suggest that they occur only as qualifiers in the cognitions of an inference. While they do so occur i n atomic cognitions, the situation, as noted before ($$ 2.28-29), is unclear and complicated with regard to non-atomic cognitions. Both subject and probandum are determined (i.e., identified) with reference to thesis."^ Since thesis i s l i n g u i s t i c a l l y the same as conclusion, ('reason'). 'Hetu' is also used to name the second sentence of 10. To avoid confusion, I refrain from using i t as a name for probans, and use i t only for naming the second sentence of 10. The same is the case with i t s English counterpart, 'reason'. 4 For important differences between the Aristotelian and traditional logic see Lukasiewicz 1957: esp 1-7. 5See $$ 2.25-27. Cf Athalye:271; Chatterjee 1950:236-37; Schayer 1933a:255. 6E.g., Sen 1924:49-50; Kitagawa 1965:20-21. Cf Goekoop 1967:4, 14-15; Randle 1930:26-27, 223, cp 264-65; Radhakrishnan 1927:78. 7 saahyavattayd paksa-vaoanam pratijfia. "Thesis i s the expression of the subject as having probandum". TD 46. See for similar remarks from Gangesa,NK s.v. pratijnd. Cp $ 6.2. 128 th i s also amounts to saying that they are determined with reference to conclusion, as the minor and major terms are determined i n t r a d i t i o n a l g l o g i c . Probans i s determined with reference to 'reason 1. $ 4.2 Given the notions of subject, probans, and probandum, the Nn account of the d i f f e r e n t cognitions c o n s t i t u t i n g an inference may be taken up. I t i s , as was pointed out before ($$ 3.20-22), IS^, rather than 10^, or 10^, that t r u l y represents 10, and hence i t i s with reference to i t that the Nn account w i l l be considered here. Let me repeat IS IS^ (1) |The mountain has smoke| (2) |Whatever has smoke has f i r e | (3) (The mountain has smoke which i s pervaded by f i r e | (4) |Therefore, the mountain has f i r e | . The f i r s t cognition of 10 as represented by IS^ has no handy name but i s described as 'paksa-dharmata-ffiana'. The property that the subject of inference has of having the probans of that inference i s c a l l e d 'paksa-9 dharmata.'. The expression, 'paksa-dhavmatd-jnana13 therefore, means the 8 . . . linga-pratipadakam vacanam hetuh. " . . . the expression propounding probans i s reason". TD 46. I t must be noted that what i s at issue here i s not the d e f i n i t i o n of pro-bans, but only a c r i t e r i o n of i t s determination. These l i n e s are a d e f i n i t i o n of 'reason' i n terms of probans and cannot very w e l l be taken also as the d e f i n i t i o n of probans i n terms of 'reason'. These remarks apply, mutatis mutandis, to the preceding fn also. 9 vyapyasya parvatddi-vrttitvam paksa-dharmata (TS 44). 129 cognition that the subject has probans (cp fns 4.45, 4.51). $ 4 . 3 Pervasion i s the second, and'according to the NNs the most important, element of IS^. Visvanatha defines i t thus: hetumannistha-virahdpratiyogind sadhyena he tor aikddhikaranyam vyaptir uoyate. "The property of probans of having the same locus as probandum, which (=probandum) i s not the counterpositive of the absence located i n that which possesses probans, i s s a i d to be pervasion". BP 69. 1 0 This d e f i n i t i o n , which I c a l l 'E', i s b a s i c a l l y the same as Gangesa's ' f i n a l ' d e f i n i t i o n (siddhanta-laksana)11 (Staal 1960a:119; Berg 1970: 573), and consists of two parts. The f i r s t p a r t — . . . sadhyena hetor aikadhikaranyam vyaptir uoyate—means that pervasion i s the coexistence (or i n v a r i a b l e concomitance) of probans with probandum. That i s , i t says that whatever has probans also has probandum, and could be formulated as (where the intended i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s such (5) (x)(Hx Sx) that H = {x/ x has probans} and, S = {x/ x has probandum}). Annambhatta also gives exactly the same d e f i n i t i o n : • • • hetu-samanddhikaranatyantabhavapratiy vyaptih. . . . "The property (of probans) of having a common locus with probandum which (=probandum) i s not the counterpositive of the constant absence having a common locus with probans ( i s ) per-vasion". TD 44. n S e e TC 2.101-03, f o r siddhanta-laksana, and Goekopp 1967:116 for a formulation of i t , which d i f f e r s from my formulation, given below, of E. For formulations of Gangesa's other d e f i n i t i o n s of pervasion, see Goekoop 1967'.passim; Bochenski 1961:442-43. 130 The second part—hetvjnannistka-vivahapvatiyogind . . . — e n j o i n s a condition on probandum. I t could be i n t e r p r e t e d e i t h e r as: i f every-thing having probans has the absence of something F, then F cannot be probandum; i n symbols, (6) (x)(Hx -> (F)(^Fx (F £ S ) ) ) j or as: i f every x has probans, then that x cannot have the absence of probandum; i n symbols, (7) (x)(Ex + ^Sx); or as: probans and absence of probandum do not coexist; i n symbols, (8) °»(3x)(Hx & ^Sx) (cf Goekoop 1967:111-12; cp McDermott 1969:11-12). (7) and (8) are obviously equivalent to (5). (6), which i s the most l i t e r a l of the three i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , can also be proved i n second order l o g i c with i d e n t i t y to be equivalent to (5). In e f f e c t , then, the second part of E does not add anything to what the f i r s t part says: E simply b o i l s down to (5), and can always be adequately represented by i t . Pervasion can also be looked upon as a set of ordered p a i r s (*F3d/ (where F and G are probans and probandum r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , such that anything that has the f i r s t component has also the second component. The two components, F and cT, are r e s p e c t i v e l y c a l l e d 'pervadend' ('vyapya') and 'pervader' ('vyapaka'). (2) of TS„ i s a f a v o r i t e Nn example of pervasion. In i t , smoke i s the pervadend and five, the pervader. $4.4 S t a a l (1960a:119; cf Berg 1970:573) represents E as (9) (axB(x3E) = axB(x3S)) & A(S3 axB(x3H)) (where A = {<.x3y)/x occurs i n y\ and B ={Kx3y}/ y occurs i n x}). In t h i s representation, Staal (1960a:109-10) uses H a i l p e r i n ' s notion of 13 a r e s t r i c t e d v a r i a b l e . The expression 'axF(x)' means the same as the expression 'x such that Fx'. The two conjuncts of (9) correspond to the two parts of E. I t i s obvious, however, that (9) i s not a correct representation of E. The f i r s t conjunct asserts that probans and probandum are co-extensive which, according to the NNs, need not be the case (see $ 4.8). I t i s perhaps for t h i s reason that Berg (1970:573) also thinks Staal's representation to be inadequate. $ 4.5 Berg's own representation of E (1970:573) i s more promising. I t i s : (10) Ox)(Ex & Sx) & (x)(Ex -*• (F)(^Fx -»• *>(y) (Sy + Fy))). In an e a r l i e r p u b l i c a t i o n , Berg (1963:605; cf F o l l e s d a l 1968:605) omits the f i r s t conjunct of (10), and formulates E as The d e f i n i t i o n E i s a c t u a l l y inadequate, as I argue i n $ 4.10. i See H a i l p e r i n 1957. 132 (11) (x)(Hx (F)(*Fx •+ *>(y)(Sy •* Fy))). But these representations also, though preferable to Staal's, yet are not quite satisfactory. Consider (11) f i r s t . It says, in effect, "Everything having probans has a l l the properties that everything having probandum has". This i s far from a l i t e r a l rendering of E, and therefore, cannot be said to be textually j u s t i f i e d . One has, of course, the right to stretch a text when the text does not admit of a clear interpretation, provided that doing so would help c l a r i f y the issue at hand. However, (11), instead of clarifying the issue, makes i t unnecessarily complicated. (5) (i.e., my formulation of E), on the contrary i s , I think,close to the text, and yet does exactly the same job i n a much simpler way. For, 14 the following proof shows that (11) i s equivalent to (5). (The proof employs the system of Mates (1965), with the exception that F i s treated as a predicate variable, and the rules UG and US are extended to quantification over F). $ 4.6 {1} 1. (x)(Hx -»• (F)(*Fx -> *(y)(Sy •> Fy))) P {1} 2. Ha -»• (F)(^Fa -> *(y)(Sy •> Fy)) 1 US {2} 3. Ha P {1,2} 4. (F)faFa -»• ^(y) (Sy Fy)) 3,2 T {1.2} 5. ^Sa -> ^ (y)(Sy -+ Sy) 4 US (2nd order) {1,3} 6. (y)(Sy -> Sy) + Sa 5 T I am indebted to Dr. Richard E. Robinson for having pointed out this equivalence to me. 133 A 7. Sa -> Sa T A 8. (y) (Sy - Sy) 7 UG {1,3} 9. Sa 8,6 T U) 10. Ea Sa 3,9 C {1} 11. (x) (Hx + Sx) 10 UG A 12. (x) (Hx •*• (F) (^Fx -> ^(y)(Sy Fy))) + (x) (Hx •+ Sx) 1,11 C {13} 13. (x) (Hx -> Sx) P {14} 14. Ha P {13} 15. Ha -* Sa 13 US {13,14} 16. Sa 14,15 T {17} 17. °uBa P {13,14,17} 18. ^(Sa -> Ba) 16,17 T {13,14,17} 19. (3y)^(Sy -»- By) 18 FG {13,14,17} 20. *(y)(Sy -* By) 19 Q {13,14} 21. ^Ba -> ^ (y)(Sy -* By) 17,20 C {13,14} 22. (F)(^Fa -> ^(y)(Sy + Fy)) 21 UG (2nd {13} 23. Ha -»• (F)(%Fa •> ^ (y)(Sy Fy)) 14,22 C {13} 24. (x)(Hx -»• (F)(^Fx -*• *(y)(Sy •+ Fy))) 23 UG A 25. (x) (Hx Sx) (x) (Hx * (F)(^Fx + «*(y)(Sy + Fy))) 13,24 C A 26. (x) (Hx + r p ; r^Fx -* i>(y)(Sy + Fy))) «-» (x)(Hx^Sx) 12,25 T $4.7 Thus, (11) is not an adequate representation of E in so far as closeness to a text i s a criterion of adequacy. Since (10) contains (11) 134 as a conuunct, i t shares the flaws of (11). It also presents a d d i t i o n a l problems owing to i t s f i r s t conjunct, namely, (12) (3x)(Hx & Sx). Since (11) i s equivalent to (5), (12) can be tagged on to (5) to y i e l d (13) (3x)(Hx & Sx) & (x)(Hx Sx). The purpose of (12) i n (13) i s apparently to b r i n g out the e x i s t e n t i a l import of (5) (and hence of (11)), although "(3x)Hx" alone would have s u f f i c e d f o r that purpose. Even though i t i s true that, according to the NNs, u n i v e r s a l sentences ( i . e . , those expressing pervasions) i n c l u d -ing u n i v e r s a l c o n d i t i o n a l s can be s a i d to have e x i s t e n t i a l import,"there i s nothing i n E i t s e l f to i n d i c a t e that t r u t h . That t r u t h has to be i n f e r r e d from other Views of the NNs, e s p e c i a l l y t h e i r theory of un-exampled terms ($$ 2.8-9). Hence (10) i s even f a r t h e r from the text than (11). The formulation of E as (13) i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y also f o r another reason: i t c o n f l i c t s with the law of contraposition which the NNs accept (with c e r t a i n reservations) ($$ 4.11-13). That i s , f o r them (5) i s equivalent to (14) (x) (^Sx -> *Hx). But (13) i s not equivalent to (15) (3x)(^Sx <§ ^Hx) & (x)(°»Sx -> "»Hx). 135 This shows that there i s something wrong i n e x p l i c i t l y i n c o r p o r a t i n g the e x i s t e n t i a l import i n the representation ( i n the object language) of a pervasion. The e x i s t e n t i a l import i s best brought out, as I point out below ($ 6.5), by s p e c i f y i n g ( i n the metalanguage) that an adequate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of (5) (or (11)) must assign non-empty sets to 'H' and I t may be concluded then that there i s no reason to represent E e i t h e r as (10) , or as (11), and that (5) w i l l do quite w e l l f o r the purpose. $4.8 Whether something i s a pervader or pervadend, i s , i t should be noted, r e l a t i v e to a given pervasion, and i s determined with reference to i t alone. For instance, fire i s the pervader with reference to the pervasion, |Whatever has smoke has f i r e | , while i t i s the pervadend with reference to the pervasion, |Whatever has f i r e has heat|. In p a r t i c u l a r , the status of an e n t i t y as pervader or pervadend i s not determined with reference to i t s range of occurrence or 'extensiveness'. While i n the stock example about smoke and f i r e , the pervader (fire) indeed i s wider i n range than the pervadend (smoke), there are other examples given by the NNs where a pervadend and the pervader are A f u r t h e r defect of (10) i s that i t i s i n a p p l i c a b l e to contra-p o s i t i v e pervasions, and i n p a r t i c u l a r to u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasions (fn 5.4, $ 6.1). But (10) i n h e r i t s t h i s defect from E i t s e l f . As I argue below i n $ 4.10, E i s narrow, and needs to be modified (see fn 4.12 above). 136 coextensive. One such example i s |Whatever i s knowable i s nameable| where knowable (or knowability) i s the pervadend and nameable (or nameability) i s the pervader. The NNs beli e v e that everything i s knowable^ and nameable (TS3 TD 48) 3 so that the example i s best expressed as (a cognition expressed by) the b i - c o n d i t i o n a l , "Everything i s knowable i f and only i f i t i s nameable" ("(x)(kx -«-»- Nx)"). When two e n t i t i e s are, as i n t h i s example, coextensive, t h e i r range of occurrence cannot 18 provide a basis f o r determining which of them i s pervader or pervadend. Pervader, therefore, i s to be understood s t r i c t l y as defined: G i s a 19 pervader of F i f and only i f every locus of F i s also a locus of G. yatra yatva prameyatvam tatra tatra abhidheyatvam. The word 'jneyatvam' i s also used i n place of 'prameyatvam'. This shows that the words 'jftdna' and 'pramd'3 (and t h e i r r e l a t e d forms) are also o c c a s i o n a l l y used synonymously by the NNs (fn 1.1) though "this i s not usually the case ($ 1.1). Some other examples of pervasions with coextensive pervader and pervadend are: (1) Whatever has animal functions has soul (Radhakrishnan 1927:79; Keith 1921:119). (2) Every earthy thing i s a smelly thing. A pervasion with coextensive pervader and pervadend i s c a l l e d 'samavydpti' while that with non-coextensive ones i s c a l l e d 'asamavydpti' or 'visamavydpti ' (Radhakrishnan 1927:80 fn 1; Datta 1960:205-6; Chatterjee 1950:240-41). ^What i s meant i s that to God at l e a s t everything i s known. 18 Athalye (245), therefore, i s wrong i n arguing that a s t r i p of ten acres of land (or a sum of f i f t y rupees) i s the pervader of a s t r i p of twenty acres (or a sum of one hundred rupees) on the ground that the former, though smaller i n s i z e , has a greater range of occurrence. I n g a l l s (1951:28) i s c l e a r l y aware of the p o s s i b l e coextensiveness of pervader and pervadend, and yet seems to concur with Athalye. 19 McDermott (1969:52) says that while a probandum contains the probans extensionally, a probans contains the probandum i n t e n s i o n a l l y . Though her remark i s d i r e c t e d to a Buddhist l o g i c i a n , i t i s relevant to 137 Pervasion, thus conceived, i s a t r a n s i t i v e r e l a t i o n : i f a l l l o c i of F are l o c i of G and i f a l l l o c i of G are l o c i of H, i t necessar-i l y follows that a l l l o c i of F are l o c i of H. I t i s also a r e f l e x i v e r e l a t i o n since every a t t r i b u t e i s pervaded by i t s e l f : F i s pervaded by F because every locus of F i s a locus of F. $ 4 . 9 The NNs d i s t i n g u i s h two forms of pervasion, namely, p o s i t i v e pervasion (anvayavyapti) and c o n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasion (vyatirekavyapti3 l i t . 'negative or a b s e n t i a l pervasion'). A p o s i t i v e pervasion i s the pervasion of a probans by the corresponding probandum, as i n the example about smoke and f i r e . A c o n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasion i s the pervasion of the absence of a probandum by the absence of the probans as i n |Where there the Nn l o g i c a l theory as w e l l since the notions of probans and probandum are essentially the same f o r a l l Indian schools. The following observa-tions may be made about i t : f i r s t l y , probans and probandum are not l i n g u i s t i c expressions, and i t would not be accurate to t a l k of t h e i r i n t e n s i o n or extension. Secondly, even i f t h i s inaccuracy i s ignored, and extension i s taken as range of occuwenoe, McDermott's remark does not hold i f 'contains' means the same as i s meant by 'properly includes'. This i s shown by the case of samavyaptis. T h i r d l y , a probans may be s a i d to contain i t s probandum ' i n t e n s i o n a l l y ' only on the Buddhist view of antawyapti. On t h i s view, every sentence expressing pervasion i s a n a l y t i c a l l y true. Sentences can be a n a l y t i c a l l y true without i n v o l v i n g i n t e n s i o n a l connection, i n the sense that i n sentences l i k e " I f John i s f a t , then 2 + 2 = 4 " , the antecedent and the consequent are unrelated i n meaning. Buddhists, however, consider only those u n i v e r s a l sentences, which they b e l i e v e involve i n t e n s i o n a l connection and are a n a l y t i c a l l y true, as expressing pervasion. The NNs, by and large, do not accept the view of antarvyapti ($$ 4.14-16, 4.19), and for them e n t i t i e s may coexist without_any i n t e n s i o n a l connection (cf t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of vyapti as samanadhikaranya). I t would not be true, therefore, to say that according to them a probans ' i n t e n s i o n a l l y ' contains the probandum. Two e n t i t i e s may be associated without having any ' i n t e r n a l ' connection. To take Quine's example, every creature with a kidney i s a creature with a heart; yet there i s no ' i n t e r n a l ' connection between having a kidney and having a heart. 138 i s absence of f i r e , there i s absence of smoke| (yatra vahnyabhavas - - - 20 tatra dhimabhavah). Given a p o s i t i v e pervasion with, say, F as probans and G as probandum, one can, according to the NNs, generate in most cases a contr a p o s i t i v e pervasion by simply making the absence of F the probandum and absence of G, the probans. And coversely, given a c o n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasion, one can generate a p o s i t i v e pervasion by proceeding xn the reverse manner. $4.10 In view of t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between p o s i t i v e and contr a p o s i t i v e pervasion, the Nn d e f i n i t i o n , E, of pervasion considered i n $ 4.3 i s narrow. That d e f i n i t i o n says simply that pervasion i s the coexistence of the probans with the probandum and does not say anything about t h e i r absences. I t i s , therefore, i n a p p l i c a b l e to contr a p o s i t i v e pervasion. This i s c l e a r from the fa c t that according to d e f i n i t i o n E, pervader and probandum are i d e n t i c a l , and so are pervadend and probans. But t h i s i s 20 hetu-sadhyayor vyaptir anvaya-vyaptih tad-abhavayor vyaptir vyatireka-vyaptih. "The pervasion of probans and probandum i s p o s i t i v e per-vasion. The pervasion of t h e i r absences i s con t r a p o s i t i v e perva-s i o n " . TD 48 (cf TS 48). . . . dvaividhyam tu bhaved vyaptev anvaya-vyatirekatdh. anvaya-vyaptir uktaiva vyatirekad ihocyate. sadhyabhxwa-vyapakatvam hetvdbhavasya yad bhavet. " . . . and there are two kinds of pervasion due to presence Candl absence. P o s i t i v e pervasion i s already spoken of. (That) due to absence, which consists i n the probans' absence being the pervader of the probandum's absence, i s here being spoken of". BP 142-43. 21 The NNs c a l l F and G i n such cases the counterpositives (pratiyogin) of the absence of F and the absence of G r e s p e c t i v e l y . ( I n g a l l s 1951:55. See also M a t i l a l 1968a:52-59). I t should be noted that a counterpositive can i t s e l f be an absence. E.g., the absence of a pot i s the counterpositive of the absence of the absence of the pot. 139 not true of a cont r a p o s i t i v e pervasion where the pervader i s the absence of the probans and the pervadend i s the absence of the probandum. The set of ordered p a i r s (F3 G*y mentioned i n $ 4.3, represents only a p o s i t i v e pervasion. A contrapositive pervasion i s represented by the set of ordered p a i r s - F \ The two sets of ordered p a i r s have t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t members and can by no means be s a i d to be the same. The NNs do not seem to r e a l i s e that t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s of pervasion and of contrapositive pervasion are incompatible, and as a r e s u l t run i n t o rather serious d i f f i c u l t i e s (discussed i n $$ 6.2-4 below) regarding inferences that contain c o n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasions. To remove t h i s i n -co m p a t i b i l i t y and to make t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of pervasion general and i n c l u s i v e of both v a r i t i e s , i t i s necessary to say, as i s done i n TD 48 and BP 142-43 (fn 4.20) f o r example, that a pervasion i s e i t h e r the co-existence of probans with i t s probandum, or the coexistence of absence of probandum with absence of the probans. $ 4.11 The d i s t i n c t i o n between the two forms of pervasion i s important i n that i t shows that the NNs were aware, wit h i n c e r t a i n l i m i t s , of the (complete) law of contraposition L(p -> q) «->• (n->q "»p)l. However, t h e i r theory of non-referring (aprasiddha) expressions ($$ 2.8-9) and some metaphysical considerations ($$ 4.8, 4.12) lead them to say that the I use '-' ( s i g n i f y i n g absence) as a term-operator as d i s t i n c t from ( s i g n i f y i n g negation) which I use as a s e n t e n t i a l operator. 140 23 e x p r e s s i o n s , "p q" and "^q -* ^ p" are not u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y e q u i v a l e n t . Thus, the NNs hold that not every p e r v a s i o n of the one form corresponds t o a pervasion of the other form, although most do. For i n s t a n c e , |Whatever i s knowable i s nameable] ($ 4 . 8 ) i s s a i d to be a u n i v e r s a l l y 24 p o s i t i v e p e r v a s i o n (kevdlanvaya-vyapti)3 t h a t i s , a p e r v a s i o n that has 25 no d i s a g r e e i n g instances (fn 5 . 4 ) . I t has no corresponding c o n t r a -p o s i t i v e p e r v a sion. The sentence "Whatever i s not nameable i s not know-a b l e " cannot express the c o n t r a p o s i t i v e p e r v a s i o n , because i t contains two vacuous expressions 'not nameable' and 'not knowable' which i s not p e r m i s s i b l e i n the Nyaya system. That i s , from a term A another term -A can be obtained by means of the term-operator '-', only i f the e x t e n s i o n of A does not exhaust the whole domain. I f i t does, then -A i s not d e f i n e d , and i t s use i n r e f l e c t i v e d i s c o u r s e i s f o r b i d d e n . I f -A i s not d e f i n e d any sentence c o n t a i n i n g i t i s a l s o not d e f i n e d ($ 2 . 7 ) . So "^q ^>p" i s not d e f i n e d , i f e i t h e r ^q or ^p or both contained -A. 23 The NNs are t a l k i n g about c o g n i t i o n s , not of sentences, here. P r o p e r l y speaking, the p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a p o s i t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n a p p l i e s t o sentences only. But I have extended i t to c o g n i t i o n s i n order to keep as c l o s e as p o s s i b l e to what the NNs are saying (see Convention E ) . Two c o g n i t i o n s are e q u i v a l e n t i f and only i f they are e x p r e s s i b l e by e q u i v a l e n t sentences. 2 A The NNs do not a c t u a l l y use the expression 'kevalanvaya' i n r e l a t i o n to vyapti. They use the r e l a t e d e x p r e s s i o n , 'kevalanvayin' i n r e l a t i o n to probans and i n f e r e n c e ( f n 5 . 4 ) . But the former usage i s i m p l i c i t i n the l a t t e r . This i s t r u e , mutatis mutandis, a l s o of the e x p r e s s i o n , 'kevalavyatireka'. The NNs do, however, use the expressions, "anvaya-vyapti" and "vyatireka-vyapti" ( f n 5 . 4 ) . 25 . The n o t i o n s of agreeing instance and disagreeing instance are e x p l a i n e d i n $$ 4 . 1 4 - 1 5 below. 141 The contrapositive of the sentence "Whatever i s knowable i s nameable" L"(x)(kx -*• Ex)"l namely, "Whatever i s not nameable i s not knowable" L"(x)(^Nx -> ^ kx) "1 therefore, i s not defined since i t s components 'not nameable' and 'not knowable' are undefined. But th i s i s an unnecessary r e s t r i c t i o n on the law of contraposition. There i s no need to regard -A as undefined i n the above case. The NNs regard i t as undefined be-cause they make the d e f i n a b i l i t y of an expression dependent on i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . But contemporary l o g i c prefers to make d e f i n a b i l i t y and well-formedness independent of how the world i s constituted, i . e . , independent of whether an expression i s a p p l i c a b l e , or whether i t i s true or f a l s e ( i f i t i s a sentence). I t , therefore, considers -A as defined (or well-formed) without regard to whether on a given i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n i t names an empty c l a s s . Besides the theory of non-referring expressions, another f a c t o r which might have made the NNs hold that the sentence "(x)(^Nx -* ^ Kx)" i s inadmissible while "(x)(Kx -»• Nx)" i s , i s the b e l i e f that these two sentences are about d i f f e r e n t things: that the l a t t e r i s only about K's ( i . e . , about the extension of the subject-term), and that the former i s 26 only about -N's. But t h i s b e l i e f , though na t u r a l and widespread even today, i s mistaken. Both sentences are equally about all the things i n the domain concerned. Both say something about a l l the things by imposing c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e i r nature. The l a t t e r says that no This i s implied also by the Nn semantic analysis of sentences ($$ 1.8-10, 2.22, 2.26-30). 142 matter what x is taken, i f i t i s K i t i s also N; and the former says that no matter what x is taken, i f i t is not N then i t i s also not K (see $ 5.6). $ 4.12 Another type of pervasion which, according to the NNs, imposes a restriction on the law of contraposition i s made up of what are called universally contrapositive pervasions (kevala-vyatireka-vyapti). A stock example of an inference containing a universally contrapositive pervasion is the following: JC 1. lEarth differs from other things (than earth)| o 2. |Because i t has smell| 3. |Whatever does not dif f e r from other things (than earth) has no smell, e.g., water| 4. |This is not like i t | 5. iTherefore, this i s not like i t | . TS 48; SM 142. (3) of I07 is a universally contrapositive pervasion. It is said to have no agreeing instances (fn 5.4) as defined by the NNs ($$ 4.14-15). For, the only entity which seems at f i r s t to satisfy the Nn definition, 27 D^, of an agreeing instance i s earth i t s e l f . But earth, being the subject of this inference, can not be used as evidence for this pervasion 27 In the Nn metaphysics, earth, a substance, is the only entity that has smell. In this i t is said to d i f f e r from a l l the other fourteen entities (the eight other substances and the six categories). In the early stages of the Vaisesika system, earth was believed to d i f f e r from thirteen entities in having smell, as the seventh category, absence, was not recognised. 143 without begging the question; that is, i t cannot be regarded, even accord-ing to the NNs, as an agreeing instance. Hence, the NNs believe that a universally contrapositive pervasion has no positive pervasion corres-ponding to i t . They do not allow the pervasion, 6. |Whatever has smell differs from other things) Cor symbolically, \(x)(Sx •+ x = e) | J as a par a l l e l to (3) of JO,; that i s , according to them, (6) can not c replace (3) of TO^. However, this restriction on the law of contra-position does not stem from the use of unexampled terms, as i t does at least in part, in the case of universally positive pervasions; (6) does not involve any unexampled terms. I think that there are two reasons for the restriction whether or not the NNs clearly saw them: (a) (6), l i k e (3) of TO,, can have no agreeing instances for exactly the same reasons ($ 5.1), and a positive pervasion without agreeing instances i s s e l f -contradictory (fn 5.4). (b) (6) is not really a pervasion since i t i s about only one entity, viz. earth; while (3) of 10 is about a whole class o of entities and is genuinely a pervasion. Thus, the case of universally contrapositive (as also universally positive) pervasions shows that, for the NNs, formation-rules for formulas expressing cognitions are not purely syntactic; they allow for semantic considerations as well. As remarked above ($ 4.11), contemporary logic does not favour this practice-$ 4.13 The NNs' account of a universally contrapositive pervasion, l i k e that of a universally positive pervasion, i s determined by metaphysical 144 considerations. The latter, as noticed i n $ 4.11, results partly from the metaphysical belief that every thing i s knowable and nameable. The former i s developed mainly with reference to 10^, and results from the NNs' belief that earth alone has smell. Of the two reasons for saying that a universally contrapositive pervasion represents a restriction on the law of contraposition, reason (a) holds only with regard to 10^. Both (3) of 10^ and (6) can have agreeing instances when they are members of some other inferences. For example, in the inference, 10. 1. 4 |Water does not have smell| 2. |Because i t does not di f f e r from others| 3. |Whatever has smell differs from others, e 4. |This i s not like i t | 5. |Therefore, this i s not like i t | , f i r e would be an agreeing instance of (3) of 10^ (=(6)), and also of (3) of 10^ were it to replace (3) of 10^. Thus, the Nn account of a universally contrapositive pervasion leads to the strange consequence that one and the same pervasion may be universally contrapositive in relation to one inference, but not in relation to another. But the Nn account of a universally positive pervasion is not thus relative owing to the Nn theory of unexampled terms with which i t i s connected. As for reason (b), i t i s not true, as was shown in $ 4.11, that (3) of 10^ and (6) are about different things. The upshot of these considerations i s that the NNs are not j u s t i f i e d in restricting the law 145 of contraposition, and not treating (3) of 10^ and (6) as logically equivalent. 3 28 $ 4.14 The NNs discuss not only the logical character of pervasion, but also the manner of i t s establishment; that i s , they have a certain theory of induction. I shall state that theory here ($$ 4.14-19) mainly in terms of what the NNs themselves actually say, and f u l l y re-construct i t in the next Chapter in terms of what has come to be called 'confirmation theory' in recent times. According to the NNs, a pervasion is established by means of frequent observation (bhuyo darsanena) of the coexistence of probans and 29 probandum. A coexistence may be either of probans with probandum or of the absence of probandum with the absence of probans. The observed instances of coexistence may, therefore, be either agreeing (sapaksa) 30 or disagreeing (vipaksa). An agreeing instance is defined as one where 31 the probandum definitely occurs; and a disagreeing instance as one 28 For a discussion of the d i f f i c u l t i e s about inferences containing contrapositive pervasions in general, see $$ 6.2-4, cp $ 5.1. 29 dhumdgnyor vyapti-grahe sadhya-sddhanayor bhuydh sahacara-darsanena. . . . "In the understanding of the pervasion of smoke and f i r e [achieved] by means of frequent observation of the concomitance of probans and probandum . . . " . TD 45 (cf TS 45). 30 Other English equivalents used for 'sapaksa' are: 'similar', 'homologous', and 'positive'. Those for 'vipaksa' are: 'dissimilar' 'heterologous', and 'negative'. 'Positive' and 'negative' are the most l i t e r a l , but 'negative instance', unlike 'vipaksa', means, in contemporary usage, a contrary instance. 'Agreeing' and 'disagreeing' are the next best, niscita-sadhyavdn sapaksah (TS 50). 146 32 where the probandum d e f i n i t e l y does not occur. For example, i f the probandum under consideration i s fire, and the pervasion i s that what-ever has smoke has f i r e , a kitchen would be an agreeing instance, and a lake would be a disagreeing instance. I t i s c l e a r from these d e f i n i t i o n s , that, f o r the NNs, an instance, whether agreeing or d i s -agreeing, i s an e n t i t y . $ 4.15 Let me c a l l the d e f i n i t i o n s of agreeing and disagreeing instances, j u s t mentioned, as and r e s p e c t i v e l y . In so f a r as the NNs regard agreeing and disagreeing instances as evidence for pervasion, and D 2 are, obviously, not s a t i s f a c t o r y as they stand, and f o r two reasons. F i r s t l y , on anything that has probandum but no probans would also be an agreeing instance, but i t could not count as evidence f o r the pervasion i n question; i t would be a n e u t r a l instance. S i m i l a r l y , on anything that lacked the probandum but not the probans also would be a disagreeing instance; but such an instance, f a r from being evidence f o r a pervasion, would a c t u a l l y be evidence against i t . Secondly, the subject of an 33 inference would, on D^, be n e c e s s a r i l y an agreeing instance, but i t cannot be used, short of begging the question, as evidence f o r the per-vasion i n question since i t s having the pervader i s the very question at 32 ^ niscita-sadhyabhavavan vipaksah (TS 51). 33 The subject of an inference would n e c e s s a r i l y be an agreeing instance on D^, because the |conclusion! of any inference, according to the NNs, i s true, and asserts that the subject has the probandum, a l -though i t i s sometimes expressed by (what amounts to) a double negative sentence ($$ 4.28-29), and i s sometimes i n terms of absence (Athalye:272). 147 issue ($ 4.12). In order to avoid these d i f f i c u l t i e s and to r e f l e c t t r u l y the p r a c t i c e of the NNs themselves of t r e a t i n g both agreeing and disagreeing instances as c o n s t i t u t i n g evidence f o r pervasion, i t i s necessary to ensure that an agreeing instance has also probans i n addit i o n to probandum and that i t i s d i f f e r e n t from the subject of inference. I t i s also necessary to ensure that a disagreeing instance lacks probans as w e l l i n add i t i o n to probandum. Besides, i n so f a r as agreeing and disagreeing instances are defined i n terms of the presence or absence of probandum, they are, according to the NNs, r e l a t i v e to an inference ($ 5.1). Owing to these considerations, the Nn d e f i n i t i o n s of agreeing and disagreeing instances need to be modified as follows: For a pervasion (of the form e i t h e r \(x)(Hx Sx) | or \(x)(^Sx ^Hx) | ) i n r e l a t i o n to an inference J , an e n t i t y a i s i . an agreeing instance i f and only i f a 4 p3 and Ha & Sa; i i . a disagreeing instance i f and only i f ^ >Ha & ^Sa (where p, H, and S are r e s p e c t i v e l y the subject, the probans and the probandum of J ) . ^ Visvanatha himself recognises the inadequacy of D^: He says (fn 5.4) that a u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference has no agreeing instances, even though on D]_, the subject of such an inference would n e c e s s a r i l y be an agreeing instance ($ 4.12, fn 4.33). S t a a l (1962b: 634-35) and M a t i l a l (1968b:531, fn 1) seem to take cognizance of only the second of my two reasons f o r the inadequacy of D]_ and D2, and modify only Di as in d i c a t e d i n ( i ) . (They do not modify D2 at a l l ) . But my second reason, c l e a r l y , needs to be accommodated as much as the f i r s t . The NNs c e r t a i n l y would not want to include an i r r e l e v a n t instance 148 Thus defined, instances have the following relations to pervasions: A universally positive pervasion has only agreeing instances; a universally contrapositive pervasion has only disagreeing instances; and a positive-contrapositive pervasion has both agreeing and disagree-ing instances (fn 5.4). $ 4.16 Pervasion, then, is based on observed instances of coexistence either of probans with probandum or of the absence of probandum with 35 the absence of probans. But the observation of such instances, however numerous they be, is not by i t s e l f enough. It must be reinforced by the non-observation of contrary instances also. How, ask the NNs, can there be a pervasion like |Whatever has f i r e has smoke| when a contrary instance like a thunderbolt i s observed, even though the coexistence of f i r e and smoke is observed a hundred times? (TD 45). They i n s i s t , therefore, that the observation of coexistence must be accompanied by the non-observation — 36 of deviation (vyabhicara, non-coexistence). Deviation is just the opposite of pervasion, and amounts to a contrary instance. F is said to (i.e., one having probandum but no probans) under sapaksa, and a contrary instance (i.e., one having probans but no probandum) under vipaksa. This i s evident also from their account of the marks of a good probans (sadahetu) ($ 6.10). 35 Although TD 45 e x p l i c i t l y mentions only the observation of the coexistence of probans and probandum, the observation of the coexistence of their absences is also, obviously, intended ($ 4.1, fn 5.4). 36 vyabh.ica.va-jnana-viraha-sahakrta-sahacara-Qfianasya. vyapti-gvah'akatvdt. "Because (that) cognition of coexistence (alone) makes one grasp pervasion which is accompanied by the absence of the cognition of deviation". TD 45 (cf BP, SM 137). 149 deviate from G i f and only i f G does not occur i n some of the l o c i of F. F i r e deviates.from smoke because smoke occurs i n only some l o c i of f i r e . That i s , some things that have f i r e have no smoke, e.g., a red hot i r o n b a l l (a f a v o r i t e Nn example). Though the NNs hold that i n general pervasion i s established by means of repeated observation, they also recognise that sometimes the observation of a s i n g l e instance i s enough i f there i s no s u s p i c i o n of d e viation (SM 137) . I f there i s such a suspicion, i t i s sometimes 37 removed by means of a reduotio ad absurdum argument (tarka) (TD 45; SM 137). I f , f o r instance the pervasion that whatever has smoke has f i r e i s doubted, the doubt could be removed by showing that the assumption of i t s contradictory |Some things having smoke have no f i r e | , leads to an absurdity. For, i f the contradictory i s true, f i r e cannot be the i n v a r i a b l e antecedent of smoke and so, there must be a breakdown of the accepted causal r e l a t i o n between f i r e and smoke which,.the NNs claim, i s absurd (Athalye:258-59, 356-57; Radhakrishnan 1927:88). I t i s obvious, however, that the use of t h i s type of argument simply begs the question as the Vedantins were quick to point out (Datta 1960:208; Athyle:259). $4.17 The NNs also r a i s e the i n t e r e s t i n g question: How can the observation of only some instances j u s t i f y a pervasion about a l l 37 S t r i c t l y speaking, 'tarka' stands f o r a whole group of unsound arguments of which the NNs accept f i v e : i n f i n i t e regress (anavastha) petitio pzn.nci.pii (cakraka), s e l f - r e l i a n c e (atmdsraya), mutual r e l i a n c e (anyonydsraya) and reductio ad absurdum (pramdriabadhitartha prasahga). But i t i s usually taken to mean the l a s t v a r i e t y . See fns 5.20, 6.18. 150 instances? This i s the t r a d i t i o n a l (Humean) problem of induction and the NNs' answer to i t , i n view of what they say about how a pervasion i s e s tablished, i s rather disappointing. Their answer i s that while observing the few given instances one observes also all the instances by means of what they c a l l ' i n t u i t i o n of u n i v e r s a l s ' (samanya-laksana-39 pratyasattz). This i n t u i t i o n consists f i r s t i n apprehending a u n i v e r s a l through the observation of some of i t s instances and then i n apprehending through that u n i v e r s a l all i t s instances. I t i s admitted, however, that a l l the instances apprehended through t h e i r u n i v e r s a l are apprehended only 40 i n t h e i r g e n e r a l i t y , not i n d e t a i l , l e s t one be omniscient! (SM 65). $ 4.18 ' I n t u i t i o n of u n i v e r s a l s ' , thus conceived, can hardly answer the problem of induction the NNs r a i s e . To take a t r i v i a l example, suppose 38 . . . sakala-vahni-dhumayor asanmikarsat katham vyapti-grahah . . . ? " . . . How Ccan there bel the grasping of a pervasion since there i s no contact with (observation of) a l l smokes and f i r e s . . . ?". TD 45. 39 • dhumatva-vahnitva-rupa-samanya-laksana-praty sakala-dhuma-vahni-jhana-sambhavat. "Because through the ' i n t u i t i o n of u n i v e r s a l s ' i n the form of smokeness and f i r e n e s s , the cognition of a l l smokes and f i r e s i s p o s s i b l e " . TD 45; see a l s o SM 63-65. This i s Gangesa's view as w e l l (Chatterjee 1950:250, fn 1). The NNs d i s t i n g u i s h between two types of perception namely ordinary (lauki-ka) which involves sense-object contact and extra-ordinary (alaukika) which does not. The l a t t e r i s also c a l l e d pratyasatti ( i n t u i t i o n ) . SarrZcnya-laksana-pratydsatti i s only one of i t s three forms, the other two being jn~ana-laksana-pratyasatti and yogaja-pratydsattt-. 40 For more d e t a i l s on ' i n t u i t i o n of u n i v e r s a l s ' , see Chatterjee 1950:209-13; Datta 1960:121-24; Athalye: 214, 261; Keith 1921:87, 117; Rldhakrishnan 1927:86, 89-90. 151 I never saw a skunk before, but see seve r a l i n Vancouver and no t i c e that each wears a c o l l a r . But t h i s can be no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r my gene r a l i z i n g that all skunks wear c o l l a r s . For, through observed skunks I can see a l l other skunks only i n t h e i r common nature, and through observed c o l l a r s , I can see a l l other c o l l a r s only i n t h e i r common nature. But the common nature of skunks may not include the property of wearing a c o l l a r , nor may the common nature of c o l l a r s include the property of being worn by skunks. So long as my pervasion does not touch the common (or e s s e n t i a l , i f you w i l l ) natures of the pervadend and the pervader the ' i n t u i t i o n of u n i v e r s a l s ' can provide no evidence at a l l . A l l the evidence must come from observed instances. 'The i n t u i t i o n of u n i v e r s a l s ' , however, does provide evidence i f the pervasion i n question touches the e s s e n t i a l natures of the pervader and pervadend. For instance, i f r a t i o n a l i t y i s an e s s e n t i a l property of man i t forms part of the u n i v e r s a l 'manhood' and i n seeing a p a r t i c u l a r man, John, I already see a l l other men as r a t i o n a l , so that I am j u s t i f i e d , on the basis of ' i n t u i t i o n of u n i v e r s a l s ' , i n saying that a l l men are r a t i o n a l . But t h i s i s so only because the evidence I get from the i n t u i t i o n i s conclusive, and there i s no longer any need for repeated observation of men. A l l I need i s to observe one s i n g l e man (or at most a few men) so that I apprehend through him the u n i v e r s a l 'manhood', and through i t a l l other men i n t h e i r common nature. In such a case, ' i n t u i -t i o n of un i v e r s a l s ' turns out to be what Johnson (1964b:29, 189 f) c a l l s ' i n t u i t i v e induction' i n which "we see the u n i v e r s a l i n the p a r t i c u l a r " . According to the notion of i n t u i t i v e induction, experience provides only 152 an o c c a s i o n f o r a p p r e h e n s i o n o f u n i v e r s a l c o n n e c t i o n s , and t h e r e f o r e , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o have knowledge o f s u c h c o n n e c t i o n s t h r o u g h t h e o b s e r v a -t i o n o f a s i n g l e i n s t a n c e . The p a r a d i g m example of i n t u i t i v e i n d u c t i o n i s t h e use o f a p a r t i c u l a r d i a g r a m to e s t a b l i s h a g e n e r a l theorem i n geometry. Though th e use o f d iagrams i n m a t h e m a t i c s i s , i n p r i n c i p l e , u n n e c e s s a r y , t h i s example does s e r v e t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e i d e a b e h i n d i n t u i t i v e i n d u c t i o n . A n o t h e r example g i v e n i s t h e u n i v e r s a l s e n t e n c e , 'Red i s d a r k e r t h a n p i n k ' e s t a b l i s h e d on t h e b a s i s o f a s i n g l e o b s e r v a -t i o n t h a t this r e d p a t c h i s d a r k e r t h a n that p i n k p a t c h ( S t e b b i n g 1948:243). $ 4.19 But i n t u i t i v e i n d u c t i o n i s n o t i n d u c t i o n , n o r e ven i n f e r e n c e f o r t h a t m a t t e r (Cohen and N a g e l 1934:273-75; C h a t t e r j e e 1950:213-14). The same g o e s , t h e r e f o r e , f o r ' i n t u i t i o n o f u n i v e r s a l s ' . I f a p e r v a s i o n can be e s t a b l i s h e d by means of a s i n g l e i n s t a n c e , t h e number and v a r i e t y o f i n s t a n c e s i n no way a f f e c t s t h e r a t i o n a l i t y o f a p e r v a s i o n , and t h e c o n -c e p t o f p r o b a b i l i t y so b a s i c t o i n d u c t i o n becomes m e a n i n g l e s s . T h i s i s so b e c a u s e t h e p e r v a s i o n t h u s e s t a b l i s h e d i s one t h a t i s e x p r e s s e d by an a n a l y t i c s e n t e n c e . I t i s what l a t e r B u d d h i s t s c a l l ' i n t e r n a l p e r v a s i o n ' _ 41 (antarvyapti) ( f n 4.19). On t h e w h o l e , t h e NNs a r e b e l i e v e d n o t t o 42 s u b s c r i b e t o t h e t h e o r y o f i n t e r n a l p e r v a s i o n . I f s o , t h e n o t i o n o f The t h e o r y o f i n t e r n a l p e r v a s i o n was f i r s t e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d by R a t n a k a r a s a n t i , though h i s t e a c h e r R a t n a k i r t i a l r e a d y a n t i c i p a t e d i t (McDermott 1969:5). See R a n d l e 1930:184-85. See M a t i l a l 1968b:531; B o c h e r i s k i 1961:440; C h a t t e r j e e 1950:247. C f . McDermott 1969:12; St c h e r b . a t s k y 1962a:26, 282. 153 ' i n t u i t i o n of u n i v e r s a l s ' i s a f u t i l e attempt at s o l v i n g the problem of induction: i t e i t h e r cannot j u s t i f y a pervasion or does so only by destroying i t s inductive character. I t has, therefore, simply to be ignored, and the NNs are to be taken i n general as maintaining that a 43 pervasion i s established by means of enumerative induction. This i s also i n d i c a t e d by the continued Nn p r a c t i c e of coupling a pervasion with an observed instance i n an inference. The NNs b r i n g i n t h i s notion of i n t u i t i o n i n connection with induction perhaps because they do not d i s t i n g u i s h between a n a l y t i c and synthetic sentences ($ 2.8). I n t u i t i o n One might try to r e c o n c i l e the Nn views about the r o l e s of i n t u i t i o n and observation i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a pervasion by assigning to i n t u i t i o n a l e s s important r o l e than i t s account presented here implies. One might argue: presumably, the NNs would allow that a pervasion, though beli e v e d to be true at a given time, may turn out to be f a l s e l a t e r . In so f a r as the NNs use i n t u i t i o n i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a pervasion, they could not have regarded i t as i n f a l l i b l e . They might have assigned to i t a r o l e d i s t i n c t from observation, and not i n v o l v i n g i n f a l l i b i l i t y . They might have conceived i t i n the fashion of Hume's notion of h a b i t . Just as Hume thought that habit produces a f e e l i n g of conviction about the t r u t h of a hypothesis without guaranteeing i t s t r u t h , so also the NNs might have thought that i n t u i t i o n generates conviction while allowing f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y of falsehood, and that the strength of c o n v i c t i o n i s i n d i r e c t proportion to the amount of experience of the coexistence of pervader and pervadend. I do not think that such an argument i s tenable. F i r s t l y , the NNs define i n t u i t i o n j u s t i n one way (fn 4.39) and the way i n which i t i s defined c l e a r l y implies that as a means of knowledge i t i s superior to sense-perception (and hence to at l e a s t inference and ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ' ) . There can be no comparison of i n t u i t i o n , thus defined, with the Humean notion of habit. Secondly, the alleged i n d i r e c t evidence, namely, the f a c t that the NNs use i n t u i t i o n i n t e s t i n g a hypothesis, i s hardly enough for a f r u i t f u l comparison. The Nn notion of i n t u i t i o n i s meant to o f f e r a logical explanation of induction, while the Humean notion of habit provides at best a psychological explanation. The former i s meant to confirm a hypothesis; the l a t t e r i s not. In f a c t , Hume, unli k e the NNs, has no theory of confirmation. But see Goodman (1965:59-61) on Hume. 154 i s presumably relevant only to a n a l y t i c sentences (which do not need 44 observation) but not to synthetic ones (which do). * * * * * * * $ 4.20 The t h i r d cognition of IS ^ i s 'consideration*. I t i s defined as the cognition that the subject has the probans, the cognition being 45 q u a l i f i e d by pervasion. In other words, i t i s the cogni t i o n that the 44 There are, of course, philosophers l i k e Quine (1961:20-46) who maintain that there i s no r i g i d d i s t i n c t i o n between a n a l y t i c and synthetic sentences, and that observation i s relevant at a l l l e v e l s of our know-ledge. Nevertheless, the d i s t i n c t i o n i s commonly recognised ever since Kant f i r s t introduced i t . 45 vydpti-visista-paksa-dharmata-jnanam pardmarsah (TC 2.2; TS 44). vydpyasya paksa-vrttitva-dhih paramarsa uoyate. "'Consideration' i s sa i d to be the cognition of the occurrence of pervadend i n the subject". BP 68. This c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n a c t u a l l y makes paramarsa i d e n t i c a l with paksa-dharmatd-jftdna. That this i s not intended i s shown i n SM 68. Cf also BP 132-33. Some pre-Garigesa members of the Nyaya-Vaisesika school, l i k e Sridhara, hold that paksa-dharmatd i s the property of having not j u s t sddhana, but sddhana as r e l a t e d to sddhya, so that paksa-dharmatd--jnana f o r them becomes n e c e s s a r i l y i d e n t i c a l with paramarsa. According to them, hetu simply mentions sddhana by i t s e l f . I t does not express a cognition at a l l : hetu-vacanam hetu-svarupa-matram (Randle 1930:170-72). This usage sometimes s l i p s i n t o the discussions of the NNs also i n t h e i r un-guarded moments. BP 68, j u s t c i t e d , provides an instance, and so does TD 46: paksa-dharma-jndndrthorn upanayah. " ' A p p l i c a t i o n ' i s meant f o r [expressing] the cognition that the subject has probans". But normally, the NNs confine the expression 'paksa-dharmatd-jnana' to c h a r a c t e r i s i n g the f i r s t c ognition of IS^, and the expression 'vydpti-visista-paksa-dharmata-jyldna' to c h a r a c t e r i s i n g paramarsa. 155 subject has, not the probans merely, but the probans as i n v a r i a b l y r e l a t e d to the probandum. For example, i n IS ^  and 10 ^ ($$ 3.9, 3.12) 'consideration' i s the cognition that t h i s mountain has smoke which i s 46 pervaded by f i r e . Consideration i s expressed by the fourth sentence 47 of IOg namely, ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' . Often, as i n 10^ , ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' i s 48 e l l i p t i c a l and has to be f u l l y restated ($ 3.9). $ 4.21 The NNs be l i e v e that 'consideration' i s absolutely e s s e n t i a l fo r inference: they always speak of a |conclusion| as born of (janya) 'consideration' (TC 2.2; TS 44). Annambhatta even goes to the extent of 49 i d e n t i f y i n g i t with inference. But t h i s i s only a way of emphasising ^vahni-vydpya-dhuamavdn ayam parvata iti jndnam pardmarsah. (TS 44; see also SM 68). hlTS 44-46; SM 68; Athalye:234, 237, 264, 269; Keith 1921:124; Hirianna 1932:256; Uno 1962:20. 48 * " — The other names of paramarsa are 'lihga-pardmarsa' and 'trtiya-lihga-paramarsa' (Athalye:254; Randle 1930:156, fn 1). The former derives from the f a c t that what i s considered i n paramarsa i s probans or sign (linga) as occurring i n the subject and as re l a t e d to probandum. The l a t t e r derives from the f a c t that paramarsa contains the t h i r d occurrence of the sig n , the f i r s t two being i n pervasion and paksa-dharmaid-jftana r e s p e c t i v e l y (Athalye:255). Because the l a t t e r contains the second occurrence, i t i s also sometimes c a l l e d 'dvitiya-lihga-jhana' (Randle 1930:170). This means that p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y , the order i n which the cognitions of IS a r i s e i n the thinker's mind i s : pervasion, paksa-dharmata-jhana and 'consideration' (TS 45; Keith 1921:112). L o g i c a l l y , the order of the elements of an inference i s i n d i f f e r e n t . Nevertheless, the NNs keep the order of 10 f i x e d , and I have represented IS by IS^ because f i r s t l y , according to the NNs, IS a c t u a l l y begins only when one has the cognition that the subject has probans; and secondly, by doing so, a p a r a l l e l i s m i s maintained between the order of 10 and that of IS. On my representation of ISy paksa-dharmatd-jndria would be prathama-lihga-jfldna and pervasion, dvitZya- lihga-jrVma. ^. . . lihga-pramarso'numdfxam (TS 47). 156 i t s importance (fns 3.14, 3.23). Even some modern i n t e r p r e t e r s seem to agree with the NNs i n regarding i t as the very heart of inference and e x t o l i t s v i r t u e s . T h e y claim that i t makes the Nn s y l l o g i s m superior to the western t r a d i t i o n a l s y l l o g i s m by bringing together, as the l a t t e r does not, a l l the three 'terms'. A l i t t l e examination of the nature of 'consideration', however, w i l l show that, l o g i c a l l y speaking, i t i s t o t a l l y superfluous. The cognition that t h i s mountain has smoke which i s pervaded by f i r e i s nothing but a conjunction of two cognitions, namely: (1) |This mountain has smoke| and (2) |Smoke i s pervaded by f i r e | (Goekoop 1967:12). The f i r s t c o g n i t i o n i s paksa-dharmata-jftdna and the second i s pervasion (excepting the deductively i r r e l e v a n t instance ($$ 4.27, 5.16)."'"'" As a conjunction, 'consideration' plays no r o l e that i s not played by i t s conjuncts and i s , therefore, superfluous. 'Consideration' can, of course, be retained, but only at the cost of making i t s conjuncts superfluous. Athalye:233-34; cp 236-37; Chatterjee 1950:280, cp 264; Keith 1921:112-15; Radhakrishan 1927:83. Ing a l l s remarks " . . . the Navya-nyaya understands such an expression as 'the mountain possess(es) f i r e because of smoke' as an abbreviation f o r 'the mountain possess(es) f i r e because i t possess(es) smoke pervaded by f i r e ' " (1951:31, fn 12, cf 35-36). This seems to suggest that, according to him, the NNs replace paksa-dharmata-jnana by paramarsa. Such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n means that paksa-dharnuta-jnana e x i s t s only as a part of 'consideration', and has no separate status as an element of inference. I t , thus, goes against the Nn view that paksa-dharrnatd-jTidna (as a separate element) i s necessary for inference, and that i t i s expressed by 'reason'. Perhaps, Ingalls does not have such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n mind, since he concedes (1951:33) that the NNs accept the five-membered syllogism. But I do not know how e l s e to i n t e r p r e t h i s remark. 157 Since the NNs define 'consideration' i n terms of i t s conjuncts ( i . e . , pervasion and paksa-dharmata-jftana) and not conversely, i t i s the former, not the l a t t e r , that needs to be reje c t e d . $ 4.22 Schayer (1933a:254-55; 1933b:100-01) considers ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' only i n i t s e l l i p t i c a l form, "And t h i s i s l i k e i t " and, i n r e l a t i o n to 10^, takes i t to mean jI f t h i s mountain has smoke, i t has f i r e | . He represents (1933a:254) 10^ as: 1. fa 2. <J>a 3. (x)($x -> f x j 4. tj>a -»• f a 5. f a 'Consideration' f o r Schayer, therefore, i s of the form | <j>a -* fa | , and not of the form \ <pa & (x)($x Va) | as I have maintained. Schayer also holds (1933a:255) that ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' formalised as "<j>a f a " " i s the r u l e of s u b s t i t u t i o n " , ( " i s t die s c h l u s s r e g e l der S u b s t i t u t i o n " ) . What he perhaps means i s that i t i s the r u l e of u n i v e r s a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n or i n s t a n t i a t i o n (but see below). I f i n d Schayer's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n unacceptable f o r the following reasons. F i r s t l y , n e i t h e r the general c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n of 'consideration' nor the ac t u a l examples of i t that the NNs give support i t . The t y p i c a l example of 'consideration' i s | l h i s mountain has smoke which i s pervaded by f i r e | , and t h i s i s very much d i f f e r e n t from |If t h i s mountain has smoke, i t has f i r e | , both i n sense and i n truth-conditions. Schayer also 158 equates (1933:255) 'application' with the expression of paksa-dhtarmatd Zffianal. This equation holds only for those early stages of Nyaya when 'consideration' had not yet made i t s appearance. During those stages, 'application' and 'reason' used to express one and the same cognition, viz. paksa-dharmatd-j?iZcna ($$ 4.25-26). But 'application' has come to express 'consideration' ever since the latter's emergence. Even granting that Schayer i s talking about Nyaya in general ignoring i t s different phases of development, and that 'application' expresses paksa-dharmata Ljnanal, 'application' would have to be of the form "<pa", and i t i s d i f f i c u l t to see how i t could be construed as "<j>a -> ^a". Secondly, i f 'application' i s construed as "§a -* Va", pervasion becomes unnecessary. The conclusion "^a" can be derived by means of sentential logic alone from (2) and (4) of Schayer's representation of IOjf. But the NNs believe that pervasion provides the main ground for |conclusion!, and this i s also perhaps one of the reasons why they discuss i t at great length ($ 5.17). The logic of quantification, therefore, i s necessarily involved. In fact Schayer's interpretation of 'application' as a rule of instantiation already assumes this. Finally, a rule of inference is a metatheoretic expression and cannot legitimately occur as a premise in the very inference which employs i t . Yet, this result i s inescapable on Schayer's interpretation of 'appli-cation' as a rule of instantiation. Treating a rule of inference as a premise reminds one of the puzzle posed long ago by Lewis Carroll (1895: 278-80), namely, that every deductive inference involves an i n f i n i t e regress. Carroll says that in the inference, for instance, 159 p •* q p • '• <? there has got to be another premise namely: "((p -> q) & p) + q". But once t h i s a d d i t i o n a l premise i s allowed, a f u r t h e r premise, (((p •* q) & p) & (((p -> q) & p) + q)) + q would have to be allowed on the same ground and so on ad i n f i n i t e m . I t might be s a i d on Schayer's behalf that ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' i s not a c t u a l l y a r u l e of i n s t a n t i a t i o n , but only corresponds to, or represents, i t . This can only mean that "cjia -*• f a " i s a step i n the d e r i v a t i o n l i c e n s e d by the r u l e of i n s t a n t i a t i o n . But again, a step i n a d e r i v a t i o n i s not a premise. I t i s only a consequence of the (set of) premises. The NNs, l i k e A r i s t o t l e , do not have any notion of d e r i v a t i o n and f o r them ' a p p l i -cation', even according to Schayer, i s n e c e s s a r i l y a premise. So even t h i s r e v i s e d version of Schayer's view w i l l not be f a i t h f u l to the Nn p o s i t i o n . $ 4.23 Other schools of Indian philosophy, e s p e c i a l l y the Mimamsakas 52 and the Vedantins, recognise the l o g i c a l s u p e r f l u i t y of 'consideration', and object to the Nn view that 'consideration' i s an indispensable element of inference. The NNs indeed make a s p e c i a l e f f o r t to answer such See Datta 1960:217-8; Chatterjee 1950:278; Radhakrishnan 1927: 81-82. 160 objections, but their answers naturally tend to be lame (TD 47: SM 68). In fact, the recognition of 'consideration' by the NNs is a retrograde step. For, in Gautama, i t does not exist and even in the early stages of the post-Gautama distinction between IS and 10, IS was generally believed to have only three members, namely, the cognition that the subject has the probans, pervasion and |conclusion!. But Prasastapada and Uddyotakara introduce 'consideration' also as essential and the NNs follow them in this respect (Randle 1930:163; fn 1, 170-71, cf Radhakrish-nan 1927:82). Again, Sridhara, insists that i n IS |conclusion! results only from the experience of probans (which, for him is different from 53 paksa-oViarmata-jftana (fn 4.45)) and the remembrance of pervasion. $4.24 |Conclusion! (Convention D) i s the cognition that the subject has the probandum. It i s expressed by the conclusion whether positive or negative. The difference between thesis and conclusion i s that while the former is entertained p r o v i s i o n a l l y and is characterised by pos s i b i l i t y or doubt (fn 3.32), the latter i s known to be true. The transition from the one to the other, therefore, indicates the thinker's progress from a state of doubt to a state of certainty. Needless to say, logic is not much interested i n such progress, and confines i t s attention mainly to the logical relationship between the elements of an inference. It i s on this ground that I have ignored thesis as logically irrelevant. My interest i n |conclusion! is simply as a cognition which is a logical 53 lihga-darsana-vyapti-smarca^bhyam evanumeya-pratity utpattih (cited in Randle 1930:171).' 161 consequence of the other cognitions of IS ^ . * * * * * * * $ 4.25 I have remarked ($ 3.9) that ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' and conclusion are usually e l l i p t i c a l and that 10^ , therefore, needs to be restated as 10 ^ . The reason f o r t h i s restatement i s not j u s t the l i n g u i s t i c d e f i c i e n c y of these c r y p t i c expressions, but a l s o , what i s more important, the l o g i c a l incoherence of t h e i r l i t e r a l meaning with c e r t a i n aspects of the Nn l o g i c a l theory. I s h a l l now t r y to point out what the nature of t h i s incoherence i s . In i t s e a r l y phases of development (as i n Gautama), the Nyaya sy l l o g i s m does not have pervasion as i t s t h i r d member ($ 4.23). The 54 t h i r d member consists e x c l u s i v e l y of an instance. The e l l i p t i c a l ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' and conclusion are presumably formulated during these phases with reference to the instance. They are i n f a c t e n t i r e l y incom-prehensible without such reference. The instance, according to Gautama, i s e i t h e r of s i m i l a r i t y (sadhazmya) with probandum, or of d i s s i m i l a r i t y (vaidharmya) with i t (NS 1.1.34-37). An instance of s i m i l a r i t y amounts to what the NNs c a l l an agreeing instance (sapaksa) and that of d i s -s i m i l a r i t y amounts to what they c a l l a disagreeing instance (vipaksa). The former i s defined with reference to the presence, and the l a t t e r with reference to the absence, of probandum only. But i n order to count as Athalye:276-78; Keith 1921:86-87, 96, cp 92; Randle 1930:178. Vidyabhushana (1921:61) i n formulating the syl l o g i s m of Gautama mentions also pervasion as the t h i r d member, but i t i s not c l e a r on what basis he does so. The NS does not mention pervasion while discussing inference. 162 a basis for conclusion , the former must also involve the presence, and the latter the absence, of the probans (cp $ 4.15). When the instance i s one of similarity, the e l l i p t i c a l 'application' and conclusion are both affirmative and assert the similarity of the subject with the instance. When the instance i s dissimilar, both are negative in form (i.e., "na oayam tatha", "tasman na tatha") and assert the dissimilarity of the subject with the instance. An affirmative 'application' asserts the similarity only with regard to probans, and an affirmative conclusion asserts i t only with respect to the probandum. Similarly, a negative 'application' asserts the dissimilarity only with regard to probans, and a negative conclusion asserts the dissimilarity only with regard to the probandum. If both asserted the similarity (or dissimilarity) of the subject with regard to both probans and the probandum, they would i n effect be saying, i n relation to 10^ , that the mountain has smoke and f i r e . In that case, not only would one of them be totally redundant, but also inference would no longer be a means of knowledge, since i t would already assume the conclusion. In Gautama's stage, as i n the Nn stage, probans i s determined with reference to 'reason' and probandum with refer-ence to thesis (and hence, with reference to conclusion)"^ ($ 4.1). Vidyabhushana 1921:60-61; Radhakrishnan 1927:80; cp Randle 1930:178. 56 sddhya-nirdesah pratijrla. "Thesis is that which states probandum". NS 1.1.33. 163 $ 4.26 In i t s early stages, then, the Nyaya syllogism could be either of the two types represented, for instance, by: 10 1. |The mountain has f i r e | 2. |Because i t has smoke| 3. |Like a kitchen| 4. |This [mountain] i s like i t (kitchen)| 5. [Therefore, this [mountain] is like i t (kitchen)|, and 10„ 1. This mountain has f i r e o 2. |Because i t has smoke| 3. |Unlike a lake| 4. |This [mountain] i s not like i t (lake)| 5. |xherefore, this [mountain] i s not like i t (lake)|. In JC> , kitchen i s an instance of similarity, since i t has the probandum, o fire (and the probans, smoke). The element (4) of 10Q likens the mountain o to the kitchen only with respect to the probans smoke, and says, in effect, that the mountain has smoke. (5) of 10^ likens i t to the kitchen only with respect to the probandum, fire and says, i n effect, that the mountain has f i r e . Similarly, in J£> , the lake is a dissimilar instance since i t 6 lacks the probandum, fire. (4) of 10^ contrasts the mountain with the lake only with respect to the probans and says, in effect, that i t i s not the case that the mountain has no smoke which i s equivalent to (2) of 10 ^. (5) of I0„ contrasts the mountain with the lake only with respect to the 6 164 probandum, and says, i n e f f e c t , that i t i s not the case that the mountain has no f i r e , which i s equivalent to (1) of 10^. I t should be noticed that i n both these types, thesis and 'reason' are a f f i r m a t i v e . Even when they are negative, they are assimilated to the a f f i r m a t i v e form by the simple e x p e d i e n t — e a s i l y a v a i l a b l e i n S a n s k r i t — o f u t i l i s i n g p r e f i x e s l i k e 'a' and 'an' (equivalent to the E n g l i s h 'non') etc . I t should also be noticed that at t h i s stage nothing l i k e the l a t e r law of contraposition i s even vaguely implied. This should be c l e a r from the absence of per-vasion. The only concern of the Naiyayikas at t h i s stage, as f a r as ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' goes, i s the presence, i n the subject, of the probans and nothing e l s e ; as f a r as conclusion goes, i t i s the presence of the probandum i n the subject. Hence, the e l l i p t i c a l ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' and conclusion are never restated, as they sometimes are by the NNs: t h e i r sense i s trans-parent. The sense of ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' whether i n 10^ or i n 10^ i s the same as that of 'reason' (just as the sense of conclusion i s the same as that of t h e s i s ) . ' A p p l i c a t i o n ' , therefore, expresses the same cognition as i s expressed by 'reason' (just as conclusion expresses the same cognition as i s expressed by t h e s i s ) . I t , l i k e t h e s i s , i s nevertheless retained f o r n o n - l o g i c a l reasons. This i s the s i t u a t i o n , I b e l i e v e , u n t i l pervasion, and 'considera-t i o n ' — w h i c h p a r t l y depends on i t i n that i t has pervasion as a c o n s t i -tuent—appear on the scene. Both these are introduced as elements of inference presumably i n the f i f t h century A.D. They d e f i n i t e l y f i g u r e i n both Prasastapada and Uddyotakara, though the word ''paramarsa' ('considera-tion') a c t u a l l y appears only i n Uddyotakara, and words l i k e 'avinabkava' 165 - 57 and ' sahaoarya' are used i n place of 'vyapti' ('pervasion'). Before the f i f t h century A.D., owing to the absence of pervasion, the dependent d i s t i n c t i o n s of p o s i t i v e and contrapositive pervasions and p o s i t i v e and con t r a p o s i t i v e inferences ( i . e . , inferences which employ them) ($$ 4.11-13, fn 5.4) could not have existed and the law of contraposition could not have played any r o l e i n the Nyaya theory of inference. $4.27 Let me now consider the s i t u a t i o n as i t p r e v a i l s i n Navya-nyaya. The i n t r o d u c t i o n of pervasion, of course, makes the instance t o t a l l y i r r e l e v a n t from the point of view of formal reasoning. Some l a t e r NNs, indeed e x p l i c i t l y recognise t h i s . Laugaksi Bhaskar, f o r instance, says that the i n c l u s i o n of the instance i s only conventional and not necessary. Yet the NNs generally r e t a i n i t f o r nondeductive purposes—as an inductive support to pervasion ($$ 4.14-16, 5.16-17). But once i t i s retained, the r e t e n t i o n also of the e l l i p t i c a l ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' and conclusion seems na t u r a l . For, these, o r i g i n a l l y formulated with reference to the instance seem to continue to r e f e r to i t and to make sense as before. In t r u t h , however, the deductive i r r e l e v a n c e of the instance renders them u n i n t e l l i -g i b l e . Most NNs do not r e a l i s e t h i s and run into d i f f i c u l t i e s regarding them. Let me i l l u s t r a t e these d i f f i c u l t i e s with reference to two types of inference, one i n v o l v i n g a p o s i t i v e pervasion, the other a contra-p o s i t i v e pervasion. Consider f i r s t the example 10^ $ 3.9). Its 5 7 R a n d l e 1930:25-26, 163, 170-71, cp 264-65; Keith 1921:27, 93, 96; Vidyabhusana 1921:130; cp $$ 4.20-21. 58 drstanta-prayogas tu samayiko na niyatah ( c i t e d i n Athalye:278). 166 ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' and conclusion l i k e n the mountain to the kitchen, and are meaningful only i n r e l a t i o n to i t . 'Application' could be taken as saying, i n e f f e c t , e i t h e r that (a) The mountain has smoke or that (b) The mountain has smoke and f i r e . And conclusion, though i t l i t e r a l l y means the same as ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' , could be taken as saying, i n e f f e c t , e i t h e r that (a) The mountain has f i r e , or that (b) The mountain has f i r e and smoke. In t e r p r e t a t i o n (a) i s , as pointed out i n $$ 4.25-26, the one that the pre-Uddyotakara Naiyayikas give. I t would be acceptable to the NNs as f a r as conclusion goes, but would not be acceptable with regard to ' a p p l i -c a t i o n ' . For, according to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (a), 'reason' and ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' express the same cognition, which i s contrary to the NNs' view that a l l the sentences, except the f i r s t , of 10 express d i s t i n c t cognitions ($$ 3.12, 3.21). (b) i s also a p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n because i n order to count as evidence f o r pervasion, an agreeing instance, which kitchen i s i n t h i s case, must have both probans and probandum ($ 4.15). In so f a r as the mountain i s likened to the kitchen, i t i s pos s i b l e that i t also has both. But the d i f f i c u l t y with t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s that, though i t makes 'a p p l i c a t i o n ' express a d i s t i n c t cognition from the one expressed by 'reason', i t also makes ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' and conclusion i d e n t i c a l , and i s l i k e 167 (a), open to the c r i t i c i s m that i t goes against the Nn requirement that a l l the sentences (except the f i r s t ) of 10 express d i s t i n c t cognitions. I t also goes against the Nn requirement that inference be a means of (new) knowledge, since i t already assumes the conclusion. Further, according to i t , thesis and conclusion do not express the same cognition, as they must for the NNs ($ 3.21, fn 4.7). Thus, on e i t h e r of the i n t e r -pretations (a) and (b), which are the only p o s s i b l e ones, an ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' cannot express 'consideration' as the NNs conceive i t . $ 4.28 Consider now an example with a contrapositive pervasion: 10j 1. |The mountain has f i r e | 2. |Because i t has smoke| 3. |Whatever does not have f i r e does not have smoke, e.g., a lake| 4. |This i s not l i k e i t | 5. |Therefore, t h i s i s not l i k e i t | . As i n IOj, i n 10^ too ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' and conclusion are i n t e l l i g i b l e only i n r e l a t i o n to the instance mentioned i n the 'example'. The instance i n t h i s case i s a disagreeing instance since i t lacks the probandum fire 59 (and of course, also the probans smoke). In so f a r as ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' and 59 Since i t i s thesis (or i n e f f e c t , conclusion) that provides a c r i t e r i o n f o r determining what a probandum i s ($ 4.1) i t i s t h e s i s , and not pervasion, that also provides a c r i t e r i o n f o r determining what an agreeing or a disagreeing instance i s . The instance i n 10^ would be an agreeing instance only i f probandum (and hence also probans) i s taken as determined with reference to pervasion, but i t cannot be so taken ($$ 6.2-4). 168 conclusion say that the mountain i s not l i k e the lake, the former can, again, be construed e i t h e r as i (a) I t i s not the case that the mountain has no smoke, or as i (b) I t i s not the case that the mountain has no smoke and that i t has no f i r e . And the l a t t e r could be construed e i t h e r as t (a) I t i s not the case that the" mountain has no f i r e or as i (b) I t i s not the case that the mountain has no f i r e and that i t has no smoke, i U:der i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (a), which again, would be that of pre-Uddyotakara Naiyayikas, ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' would express the same cognition as i s ex-pressed by 'reason', and conclusion would express the same cognition as that expressed by t h e s i s . Hence, (a) would be acceptable to the NNs as far as conclusion i s concerned; but with regard to ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' i t i s open to the same objection mentioned above under (a) i n connection with 10 . i I n t e r p r e t a t i o n (b) makes 'ap p l i c a t i o n ' and conclusion i d e n t i c a l and involves three subcases: i (b^) The mountain has smoke and the mountain has no f i r e t (b 2) The mountain has no smoke and the mountain has f i r e i (b^) The mountain has smoke and the mountain has f i r e . i Under each of these subcases, (b) l i k e (b), makes ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' express a 169 d i s t i n c t cognition from that expressed by 'reason', but i s otherwise open i to the same c r i t i c i s m to which (b) i s . In fac t (b^) i s the same as (b). i » Hence, once again, under neither (a) nor (b), can ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' express 'consideration'. $ 4.29 The re i s a d i f f e r e n t way of looking at the instance accompanying pervasion which would enable an e l l i p t i c a l ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' to express 'con-s i d e r a t i o n ' . This i s to regard the instance of a p o s i t i v e inference as having probans as pervaded by probandum. In 10^ , k i t c h e n may be viewed as an instance i n v i r t u e of i t s having smoke as pervaded by f i r e . On th i s view of an instance, the ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' i n 10^ , which asserts the s i m i l a r i t y of the mountain with the kitchen, would say. (c) The mountain has smoke which i s pervaded by f i r e and so, would express 'consideration'. S i m i l a r l y , i n a con t r a p o s i t i v e inference, the instance may be regarded as not having probans as pervaded by f i r e . That i s , i n 10^ the lake may be regarded as not having smoke which i s pervaded by f i r e . In so f a r as the 'a p p l i c a t i o n ' i n 10^ asserts the d i s s i m i l a r i t y of the mountain from the lake, i t would say: i (c) I t i s not the case that i t i s not the case that the mountain has smoke which i s pervaded by f i r e . Or e q u i v a l e n t l y , I I (c) The mountain has smoke which i s pervaded by f i r e . I I (c) i s equivalent to I I ( c 1 ) The mountain has smoke, and whatever has smoke has f i r e 170 which i n turn i s equivalent to it (C2) The mountain has smoke and whatever does not have smoke has no f i r e which i s the conjunction of 'reason' and 'example' (except that part of i t which mentions the instance) and, therefore, may be s a i d to express 'consideration'. But t h i s way of looking at an instance creates other d i f f i c u l t i e s . F i r s t l y , to say that the kitchen has smoke vhich i s pervaded by f i r e i s to say that the kitchen has smoke and that whatever has smoke has f i r e . On t h i s view, an instance f a i l s of the purpose f o r which i t was (primarily 61 at any rate) intended, namely, to provide inductive support f o r pervasion. For, instead of supporting i t , the instance would already assume i t ($$ 4.27, 5-16). Secondly, t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n also would make 'applica-t i o n ' and conclusion exactly the same and to that extent would be as de f e c t i v e as (b) and (b). For a l l these reasons, I think that there i s no way of i n t e r p r e t i n g the e l l i p t i c a l versions of ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' and conclusion so as to make them It i s possible to say that an e n t i t y can be an instance without providing i nductive support. For example, Gage (the present President of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia) i s an instance of the pervasion |A11 bachelors are men|. Yet, the instance cannot be s a i d to have a con-firmatory r o l e , because the pervasion i s (what we c a l l ) a n a l y t i c , and needs no confirmation; i t can only have an i l l u s t r a t i v e r o l e . But i f an instance can have an i l l u s t r a t i v e r o l e i n the case of some ( i . e . , a n a l y t i c ) pervasions, there i s no reason to deny i t i n the case of other ( i . e . , synthetic) pervasions. However, the NNs did not have the a n a l y t i c -s y n t h etic d i s t i n c t i o n (from which stems the i l l u s t r a t i v e - c o n f i r m a t o r y d i s t i n c t i o n ) ($ 2.8), and i t i s hard to say, except on an i n t u i t i v e l e v e l , whether they were aware of the i l l u s t r a t i v e r o l e of an instance. The i n t e r e s t i n g point i s that they were very much aware of the confirmatory r o l e . 171 consistent with the Navya-nyaya theory of inference. I f e e l that some how the NNs have f a i l e d to r e a l i s e that the r e t e n t i o n of these versions i s incoherent with the changes brought i n by the emergence of pervasion as a member of inference. My suggestion, therefore, i s to ignore t h e i r l i t e r a l meaning altogether and to mechanically take them as expressing 'consideration' and |conclusion]. 10^ and I0^y therefore, have to be restated r e s p e c t i v e l y as I09 and 10 8 2. 1. 3 . |This mountain has f i r e | |Because i t has smoke] |Whatever does not have f i r e does not have smoke, e.g., a lake| 4 . This mountain has smoke, and whatever does not 5. have f i r e does not have smoke| (Therefore, t h i s mountain has f i r e j . CHAPTER V A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE NAVYA-NYAYA THEORY OF CONFIRMATION $5 . 1 The most p e c u l i a r aspect of the Nn theory of pervasion i s that i t makes pervasion r e l a t i v e to an inference. The NNs regard pervasion only as an element of inference, and define i t i n terms of probans and probandum (or t h e i r absences) ($ 4.15). Such a r e s t r i c t i o n i s , of course, unnecessary. Pervasion, according to the NNs, i s the meaning of a u n i v e r s a l sentence, and a u n i v e r s a l sentence obviously has s i g n i f i -cance even outside inference and needs to be defined independently of the i n f e r e n t i a l context. This seems to have been partly r e a l i s e d by Gangesa who objects to a l l d e f i n i t i o n s of pervasion i n terms of probans and probandum,*" and gives h i s own f i n a l d e f i n i t i o n i n terms of r e l a t i v e and demonstrative pronouns (fn 4.11). However, h i s d e f i n i t i o n runs i n t o other d i f f i c u l t i e s (discussed i n $$ 6.2-4). As a consequence of the r e s t r i c t i o n of pervasion to inference, agreeing and disagreeing instances are defined not with reference to pervasion i t s e l f , but with reference to the presence or absence of pro-bandum ($$ 4.14-15). So, whether something i s to count as an agreeing or a disagreeing instance f o r a pervasion i s to be determined, on the Nn view, by looking to the inference as a whole i n which that pervasion TC 2.91-92. See also Goekoop 1967:18, 21-23, 83 and 107. 173 occurs, and not by looking to that pervasion i t s e l f . That i s , no choice of instances, agreeing or disagreeing, i s pos s i b l e without reference to the inference containing the corresponding pervasion, and i t i s not po s s i b l e to t a l k of e s t a b l i s h i n g a given pervasion i n general. Since the same pervasion can occur as part of d i f f e r e n t inferences (containing d i f f e r e n t probandums), t h i s has the odd consequence that the same e n t i t y can be an agreeing and a disagreeing instance i n r e l a t i o n to the same pervasion! With reference to 10^ f o r example, where the pervasion i s |Whatever has smoke has f i r e | , a kitchen i s an agreeing instance. But with reference to the inference, IOg 1. |This mountain has absence of smoke| 2. |Because i t has absence of f i r e | 3. |whatever has smoke has f i r e , e.g., a kitchen| 4. |This mountain has absence of f i r e pervaded by absence of smoke| 5. (Therefore, this mountain has absence of smoke|, which contains the same pervasion, a kitchen i s a disagreeing instance since i t lacks the probandum, v i z . , absence'of smoke ( i . e . , i t has smoke). Not only would the same e n t i t y count as both an agreeing and a disagreeing instance f o r the same pervasion, but a l s o , the same e n t i t y would count as an agreeing (or a disagreeing) instance both f o r a given pervasion and i t s contrapositive. In 10^, a kitchen i s an agreeing 2 This example i s not a c t u a l l y mentioned i n the texts, but i s a natu r a l modification of 10^. 174 instance; but even i f the pervasion of 10^ i s replaced by i t s contra-p o s i t i v e , |whatever has absence of f i r e has absence of smoke|, a kitchen would s t i l l be an agreeing instance, since i t has the probandum, f i r e . Even though one i s i n c l i n e d to think that the same e n t i t y should count as an agreeing (or a disagreeing) instance f o r two l o g i c a l l y equivalent hypotheses (as a pervasion and i t s cont r a p o s i t i v e a r e ) , i t i s not clear i f the NNs are w i l l i n g to accept t h i s necessary consequence of t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s of agreeing and disagreeing instances. They hardly ever c i t e kitchen as a supporting instance f o r the c o n t r a p o s i t i v e perva-s i o n j u s t mentioned. The supporting instance u s u a l l y given i s a lake. A further odd consequence which r e s u l t s from the Nn r e s t r i c t i o n of pervasion to inference, and which also the NNs would perhaps be u n w i l l -ing to accept, has already been noted ($ 4.13). I t i s that whether or not a pervasion i s u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e depends on the inference containing i t . These d i f f i c u l t i e s could have been e a s i l y avoided by d e f i n i n g an agreeing and a disagreeing instance with reference to pervasion i t -s e l f instead of with reference to probandum. An agreeing instance would then be an e n t i t y that has the pervader (and the pervadend), and a disagreeing instance would be one that lacks the pervader (and the per-3 vadend). Thus defined, an instance would be r e l a t i v e only to pervasion, Even Gangesa, who had the i n s i g h t of d e f i n i n g pervasion inde-pendently of inference, defines an agreeing and a disagreeing instance i n terms of probandum and i t s absence (Athalye:290), and does not seem to see the d i f f i c u l t i e s involved i n so doing. 175 not to inference. While pervasion i t s e l f i s , according to the NNs i n general, r e l a t i v e to inference, Gangesa's f i n a l d e f i n i t i o n ($ 5.1) shows how i t can be made independent of inference. I f pervasion i s thus made independent of inference and an instance i s defined i n terms of pervader (or i t s absence), then there i s no longer the d i f f i c u l t y that the same e n t i t y can count as both an agreeing and a disagreeing instance f o r the same pervasion. S i m i l a r l y , the same e n t i t y could not be an agreeing (or a disagreeing) instance f o r both a pervasion and i t s contra-p o s i t i v e ; and whether or not a pervasion i s u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e would not be dependent on the inference containing i t . $5.2 Despite these d i f f i c u l t i e s about agreeing and disagreeing instances, i t remains true, on the Nn view, that i n r e l a t i o n to any given inference, whether a p a r t i c u l a r e n t i t y i s to count as an agreeing or a disagreeing instance i s unambiguously determined. The 'extension' of the probans and the probandum of that inference w i l l also show whether both agreeing and disagreeing instances, or only agreeing instances, or 4 only disagreeing instances are p o s s i b l e . According to the NNs, most 4 Accordingly, inference i s divided i n t o three kinds: anumdnam hi trividham kevaZdnvayi-kevaZavyativeky-anvaya-vyativeki-bheddt. . . . "Inference indeed CisH of three kinds owing to the dif f e r e n c e between the u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e , the u n i v e r s a l l y contra-p o s i t i v e , CandD the p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a p o s i t i v e . . . ". SM 142. The NNs base t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n on a th r e e - f o l d d i s t i n c t i o n of probans. Visvanatha, f o r instance, continues i n the above passage: tatvdsad-vipaksah kevaldnvayi Zhetuhl, . . . asat-sar^aksah kevaZa-vyatireki. . . . sat-sapaksa-vipakso 'nvaya-vyativekv. . . . In these l i n e s , the adjectives 'kevalanvayi' e t c . , are i n the masculine 176 inferences have both agreeing and disagreeing instances. This means that most pervasions ( i . e . , those contained i n such inferences) are form, and hence can not q u a l i f y 'anumana' (which i s i n neuter gender). They must be understood to q u a l i f y 'hetuh'. On this understanding, the l i n e s can be rendered as follows: There ( i . e . , i n the context of the th r e e - f o l d d i s t i n c t i o n of i n f e r -ence) , the u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e CprobansJ i s that which has no disagreeing instances. . . . The u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e i s that which has no agreeing instances. . . . The p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a -p o s i t i v e i s that which has CbothD agreeing and disagreeing i n -stances. . . . However, the th r e e - f o l d d i s t i n c t i o n of probans i s i t s e l f made i n terms of pervasion, and n a t u r a l l y so since the question of agreeing and d i s -agreeing instances (whose purpose i s to e s t a b l i s h a pervasion ($$ 4.14-16)) i s , s t r i c t l y speaking, i r r e l e v a n t to probans. Thus, Annambhatta says: . . . anvayena vyatirekena ca vyaptimad anvaya-vyatireki Llingaml. . . . anvayamdtra-vyaptikam kevalanvayi. . . . vyativekamatva-vyavtikam kevala-vyatireki. . . . "That Cprobansl i s p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a p o s i t i v e whose pervasion i s Cestablished!] by means of Cboth] presence and absence ( i . e . , by means of both agreeing and disagreeing instances). . . . That i s u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e whose pervasion has only presence ( i . e . , has only agreeing instances). . . . That i s u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e whose pervasion has only absence ( i . e . , has only disagreeing instances) . . . 1 1. TS 48. (In t h i s t r a n s l a t i o n , the expression 'whose pervasion' i s to be understood as 'the pervasion of that inference i n which the probans occurs'. I t should not be under-stood as 'the pervasion i n which the probans occurs', since i n a c o n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasion the probans does not occur). In view of the f a c t that the d i s t i n c t i o n of probans i s i n terms of pervasion, i t can be dispensed with, and the t h r e e - f o l d d i s t i n c t i o n of inference can be taken to be d i r e c t l y i n terms of pervasion. In other words, one can l e g i t i m a t e l y say: a p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference i s one whose pervasion i s established by means of both agreeing and d i s -agreeing instances; a u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e inference i s one whose pervasion i s established by means of agreeing instances alone; and a u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference i s one whose pervasion i s est a b l i s h e d by means of disagreeing instances alone. The following points about t h i s t h r e e - f o l d d i s t i n c t i o n of i n -ference deserve n o t i c e : (1) Since i t i s concerned with the way i n which a pervasion i s esta b l i s h e d , i t i s not a d i s t i n c t i o n of forms of (deductive) 177 es t a b l i s h e d by means of both agreeing and disagreeing instances. This i s c l e a r not only from TS 48, SM 142 (both c i t e d i n part i n fn 5.4), and SM 137,^ but also from the Nn requirement that a probans must occur only where the probandum occurs, and that i t must not occur where the probandum does not occur ($ 6.10). 7 Despite the NNs' p r a c t i c e of mentioning only an agreeing or only a disagreeing instance i n support of a pervasion, t h e i r theory demands that they both be mentioned. There are inference. It must not, therefore, be confused with another which is a formal d i s t i n c t i o n , namely, the two-fold d i s t i n c t i o n , expressed almost i n the same terms, between a p o s i t i v e (anvayi) inference and a contra-p o s i t i v e (vyatireki) inference. These two forms are s o - c a l l e d because the former contains, l i k e 10% ($ 3.9), a p o s i t i v e pervasion; and the l a t t e r contains, l i k e I03 ($ 4.12), I04 ($ 4.13), I0? ($ 4.28), and I08 ($ 4.29), a co n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasion. Though t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s not e x p l i c i t l y formulated by the NNs, i t i s i m p l i c i t i n t h e i r theory of inference (cf esp TS 48 j BP, SM 142-43). The l o g i c a l form of p o s i t i v e and u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e inferences i s the same. So i s the l o g i c a l form of c o n t r a p o s i t i v e and u n i v e r s a l l y c ontrapositive inferences ($ 6.1). (2) The t h r e e - f o l d d i s t i n c t i o n of pervasion, on which the t h r e e - f o l d d i s t i n c t i o n of inference i s based, i s likewise not to be confused with the two-fold d i s t i n c t i o n between a p o s i t i v e pervasion (anvya-vyapti) and a c o n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasion (vyatireka-vyapti) (BP 142-43). The two d i s -t i n c t i o n s are based on d i f f e r e n t p r i n c i p l e s : the former on the manner i n which a pervasion i s e s t a b l i s h e d , and the l a t t e r on the form of a perva-s i o n . See S t a a l (1962b:638-41) f o r a b r i e f discussion of the three kinds of inference j u s t mentioned. ~*From an examination of the NNs' theory of inference, and a survey of the examples they give, I think that t h i s i s a n a t u r a l assumption to make. 6 evam anvaya-vyatirekabhyam sahacara-grahasyapi hetuta. " S i m i l a r l y , the apprehension of coexistence by means of presence and absence i s also ( i . e . , besides non-observation of contrary instances) a cause (in e s t a b l i s h i n g a pervasion)". ^This requirement of the NNs reminds one of the 1 three aspected l o g i c a l mark* (trairupya) of the Buddhists. For d e t a i l s on trairupya, see Stcherbatsky 1962a:241-43, 281-83; 1962b:51-58; St a a l 1962b:634-38; McDermott 1969:11-12. 178 some pervasions which are established by means of only agreeing instances, and some others which are established by means of only disagreeing i n -stances. These are the universally positive and the universally contra-positive pervasions (fn 5.4; $$ 4.12-13). As noticed before ($ 4.12-13), i t i s because of certain metaphysical beliefs that the NNs hold that a universally positive pervasion has no disagreeing instances, and that a universally contrapositive pervasion has no agreeing instances. Leaving g these special cases aside for the moment, one may say that a pervasion is established according to the NNs, by means of both agreeing and dis-agreeing instances. This account of the NNs, I think, contains at least i m p l i c i t l y , some sort of what i n contemporary philosophy of science has come to be called 'confirmation theory'. Giving a satisfactory account of what constitutes an agreeing instance has turned out to be one of the toughest tasks of confirmation theory, and a l l accounts so far attempted are found to give rise to the so-called paradoxes of confirmation. A brief consideration of some of these accounts i s necessary for an assessment of the Nn theory of agreeing and disagreeing instances. 9 $5.3 There i s , to begin with, what Hempel calls "Nicod's Criterion". This view i s intui t i v e l y appealing and therefore, widely held. In g I return to these special sorts of pervasions in $ 5.15. 9 This criterion i s propounded in Nicod 1930. It is also treated in Hempel 1945 which is included, with some changes and a postscript, in Hempel 1965. My account of i t is based on Hempel's treatment. r e l a t i o n to hypotheses of the form, (6) (x)(Rx -»• Bx) (to which his account i s l i m i t e d ) , Nicod regards an object i . as a p o s i t i v e instance i f and only i f i t s a t i s f i e s both the antecedent and the consequent of the formula following the q u a n t i f i e r ; i i . as a negative (contrary) instance i f and only i f i t s a t i s f i e s the antecedent but not the consequent; and i i i . as a n e u t r a l instance i f and only i f i t f a i l s to s a t i s f y the antecedent whether or not i t s a t i s f i e s the consequent (Hempel 1965:11; Scheffler:1963:239). In other words, an object a i s a p o s i t i v e or confirming instance of (6) i f and only i f the sentence (7) Ra & Ba i s true. I t i s a negative (or contrary or disconfirming) instance i f and only i f the sentence, (8) Ra <§ ^Ba i s true; and i t i s n e u t r a l ( i . e . , n e i t h e r confirms, nor disconfirms) and only i f e i t h e r (9) ^Ra & Ba or (10) ^Ra & ^Ba i s true. 180 But t h i s c r i t e r i o n of p o s i t i v e , contrary and n e u t r a l instances v i o l a t e s the equivalence condition vhich "demands that everything con-firming any sentence confirm also every l o g i c a l l y equivalent sentence" ( S c h e f f l e r 1963:240). I t thus gives r i s e to a paradoxical s i t u a t i o n : though (7) confirms (6), i t does not confirm the equivalent hypothesis, (11) (x)(^Bx -> ^Rx) but i s n e u t r a l to i t . Again, (10) which i s n e u t r a l to (6) confirms (11). In a d d i t i o n , Nicod's account i s very much r e s t r i c t e d i n scope: i t does not apply to hypotheses i n the form of e x i s t e n t i a l sentences'. Even w i t h i n u n i v e r s a l c o n d i t i o n a l s , i t does not apply to those with mixed q u a n t i f i e r s . $5.4 There i s , next, the ' s a t i s f a c t i o n c r i t e r i o n ' of Hempel^ who pioneered the work i n t h i s f i e l d . This c r i t e r i o n accepts, among others, the equivalence condition as a necessary adequacy condition f o r any c r i t e r i o n of confirmation. Nicod regards an instance as an object, so that confirmation f o r him i s a semantic r e l a t i o n : a dyadic r e l a t i o n between an extra l i n g u i s t i c e n t i t y ( i . e . , the evidence) and a l i n g u i s t i c e n t i t y ( i . e . , the sentence expressing a hypothesis). In order to make confirmation purely s y n t a c t i c , Hempel (1965:21-22) construes i t as a r e l a t i o n between two sentences, one describing the given evidence and the other expressing the hypothesis. Thus, instead of saying that an object The basic source i s Hempel 1943. Hempel 1945 contains a le s s t e c h n i c a l account. 181 a which i s both a raven and black confirms the hypothesis " A l l ravens are black", he says that the sentence "a i s a black raven" confirms i t . Sentences l i k e the l a t t e r he c a l l s observation reports or observation sentences, since they describe data a c c e s s i b l e to observation. An obser-v a t i o n report thus consists only of i n d i v i d u a l constants and 'observable' predicates (besides, of course, the t r u t h - f u n c t i o n a l constants) and no v a r i a b l e s . This d i s t i n c t i o n between regarding an instance as an object and regarding i t as a sentence, though important, i s not necessary f o r my l i m i t e d purpose. I w i l l , therefore, be t a l k i n g , e s p e c i a l l y i n connection with the Nn view of confirmation, of objects and sentences i n d i f f e r e n t l y as confirming or disconfirming a hypothesis. The context i n v a r i a b l y makes i t c l e a r whether an object or a sentence i s meant. The main idea behind Hempel's construction i s that i f a hypothesis i s true of the class of i n d i v i d u a l s mentioned i n a given observation report, then that report confirms that hypothesis, and not otherwise ( S c h e f f l e r 1963:248). In other words, the report confirms the hypothesis i f and only i f the hypothesis would be true, were the universe to shrink to j u s t those objects mentioned i n the report. More p r e c i s e l y , a con-firming report l o g i c a l l y implies what the hypothesis says of t h i s shrunken universe. This notion of r e s t r i c t e d a s s e r t i o n of a hypothesis, Hempel c a l l s the 'C-development' of that hypothesis. C-development i s the development of a hypothesis H i n r e l a t i o n to the class C of i n d i v i d u a l s mentioned i n an observational report E. For example, consider again the hypothesis (6) and the observational report 182 (12) (V?a v Ba) & (^Rb v Bb) The class of i n d i v i d u a l s mentioned i n (12) i s {a,b}. I f the universe consisted only of t h i s c l a s s , then (6) would be expressed as (13) (Ra + Ba) & (Rb •* Bb). (13) thus i s the C-development of the hypothesis (6) i n r e l a t i o n to the observation report (12). Since (12) and (13) are equivalent and (12), being an observational report, i s true, (13) must be true a l s o . Hence, (12) confirms (6). In order that an observational report confirm a hypothesis, i t i s , of course, not necessary that i t be equivalent to the C-development of that hypothesis; i t i s enough i f i t l o g i c a l l y implies the C-development. On Eempel's theory then, (9) and (10), which on Nicod's theory are neutral to (6), both confirm not only (6), but also i t s equivalent (11), and so does (7). An observational report disconfirms a hypothesis, according to Hempel, i f i t confirms the d e n i a l of that hypothesis. For example, the observational report (14) (Ra & ^Ba) & (Rb & ^Bb) confirms the hypothesis (15) (3x)(Rx & ^Bx) since i t implies the C-development of (15) which i s , (16) (Ra & ^Ba) v (Rb & ^Bb) Since (15) i s the. d e n i a l of (6) , (14) disconfirms (6). 183 F i n a l l y , an observational report, according to Hempel, i s ne u t r a l to a hypothesis i f i t neither confirms nor disconfirms i t . If one talks i n terms of e n t i t i e s instead of i n terms of observational reports about them, one can notice that Hempel's account b o i l s down to the simple statement: those objects are p o s i t i v e instances of which the hypothesis i n question i s true; those are negative instances of which i t i s f a l s e ; and those are n e u t r a l to which i t i s i n a p p l i c a b l e . $5.5 Hempel's account, by accepting the equivalence condition, avoids the paradoxical s i t u a t i o n a r i s i n g from Nicod's p o s i t i o n ; but i t gives r i s e to other paradoxes. These paradoxes stem mainly from the acceptance of the equivalence condition. F i r s t l y , there i s the paradox that a t o t a l l y 'unrelated' object can confirm a s c i e n t i f i c hypothesis. For instance, (10) implies the C-development of (6) and so confirms i t ; and s i m i l a r l y (7) confirms (11). This means that one can claim to have con-firmed a hypothesis l i k e "Fat people are c h e e r f u l " j u s t by looking at the numerous pins on one's desk! Secondly, there i s the paradox that two contradictory reports confirm one and the same hypothesis. For instance (7) and (10) are contradictory, and yet confirm e i t h e r of (6) and (11), since each implies the C-development of e i t h e r . T h i r d l y , there i s the paradox that the observational report, (17) ^Ea by i t s e l f confirms not only (6) and (11), but also (18) ^(lx)Rx Cor e q u i v a l e n t l y , (18) (x)^Rxl. S i m i l a r l y , the observational report (19) Ba confirms, i n a d d i t i o n to (6) and (11), also the hypothesis (20) (x)Bx. I f (6) and (11) are taken as representations r e s p e c t i v e l y of (21) A l l ravens are black and (22) A l l non-black things are non-ravens, then the paradoxes of Hempel's theory can be summed up i n concrete terms as follows: (a) a non-black non-raven confirms (21) and a black raven confirms (22); (b) a black raven and a non-black non-raven both confirm e i t h e r of (21) and (22); and (c) any non-raven confirms besides (21) and (22) also (23) Nothing i s a raven i which i s represented by (18). S i m i l a r l y , any black thing, raven or non-raven, confirms, i n a d d i t i o n to (21) and (22), also (24) Everything i s black which i s represented by (20). 185 $ 5.6 Hempel, of course, i s aware of a l l these paradoxes, but maintains that they are t h e o r e t i c a l l y harmless and should be disregarded. As he says, "The impression of a paradoxical s i t u a t i o n i s not o b j e c t i v e l y founded; i t i s a psychological i l l u s i o n " (Hempel 1965:18). The paradoxes a r i s e not because of any formal c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n the theory but because of a c o n f l i c t between two of our i n t u i t i o n s which seem to be equally obvious. On the one hand, there i s our i n t u i t i o n regarding what con-s t i t u t e s a p o s i t i v e instance. I t refuses to accept a non-raven as a p o s i t i v e instance of (21), and hence to accord i t the same confirmatory status as a black raven. On the other hand, there i s the i n t u i t i o n which s t e a d f a s t l y adheres to the equivalence condition. Hempel holds the former i n t u i t i o n responsible f o r the mischief, and explains the paradoxes by means of the following two considerations: F i r s t l y , there i s a widespread tendency to think that sentences of the form (6) and (11) d i f f e r from each other because they are about d i f f e r e n t things; that, i n other words, (6) i s about only those x's that are R, and (11) i s about only those x's that are not B. But t h i s tendency i s mistaken. According to f i r s t order l o g i c , there i s , i n t h i s regard, no d i f f e r e n c e between (6) and (11). Both say something about all the members of the domain i n question by imposing c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s on them (Hempel 1965:18-19; S c h e f f l e r 1963:265). (6), for instance, says that no matter what x is taken, i f i t i s R then i t i s B; or that every x i s e i t h e r not R or B, The same goes, mutatis mutandis f o r (11) ($ 4.11). Hence, a l l x1s that are e i t h e r both R and S, or neither R nor S, or only not R or only B can be confirming instances of e i t h e r (6) or (11). There i s no 186 basis to discriminate among them as to t h e i r confirmatory status. There may, of course, be basis to discriminate among them as to t h e i r degree of confirmatory force, but what i s at issue here i s q u a l i t a t i v e , and not qu a n t i t a t i v e , confirmation (Hempel 1965:48). Secondly, underlying the i n t u i t i v e i n e q u a l i t i e s among p o s i t i v e instances of a hypothesis, there i s frequently the i l l e g i t i m a t e i n t r o -duction of extra information. For instance, one might f e e l that a piece of yellow burning sodium confirms the hypothesis (25) A l l sodium s a l t s burn yellow, while an object l i k e a piece of i c e does not, though i t confirms (26) A l l non-yellow-burning things are non-sodium s a l t s . This i s so because the given object i s already known to be i c e , and, therefore, independently known not to be a sodium s a l t . But the importation of t h i s independent knowledge, though unwitting, i s i l l e g i t i m a t e . In judging the relevance of an instance J to a hypothesis H, no information bearing on H, other than merely that I i s an instance (confirming, d i s -confirming or neutral) must be assumed. I f the given object i s not independently known as i c e , and i s taken as purely u n s p e c i f i e d , and, on being found not to burn yellow, i s analysed and found to lack sodium s a l t , i t would be taken as genuinely confirming not only (26) but also (25). I t would no longer generate the f e e l i n g of paradox. Because of the disguised independent information, the given object does not c o n s t i t u t e a new p o s i t i v e instance, and there i s the f e e l i n g that i t does not add to the evidence i n 187 favour of (25). But i f i t i s shorn of the independent information, i t does genuinely add to the evidence, though not to the same degree to which a piece of yellow burning sodium would. $5.7 The same point may be expressed i n terms of the notion of C-develop-ment. Let a be the given object and l e t (25) and (26) be represented as (27) (x)(Sx •* Yx) and (28) (x)(^Yx -> ^Sx). Now, the C-development of (27) and (28) with reference to the object a are r e s p e c t i v e l y i (29) Sa •> Ya Cor equ i v a l e n t l y , (29) ^ Sa v Yal and i (30) ^Ya -»- ^Sa Cor equivalently, (30) Ya v ^Sal I f one already has the information conveyed by (31) ^Sa i t w i l l imply (29) and hence confirm (27) i r r e s p e c t i v e of what observa-t i o n a l report one may have regarding a. (31) ind i c a t e s that a i s an already known instance. I t cannot, therefore, f u r t h e r strengthen (27), thus g i v i n g r i s e to a f e e l i n g of paradox. 188 The paradox about (17) and (19) confirming respectively (18) and (20) is also explained by Hempel as being due to the intrusion of additional and illegitimate information. One is unwilling to treat (17) and (19) as confirming (18) and (20) because one has independent information that these latter are false. Once this extra information is excluded, there is no reason why (17) and (19) should not be regarded as positive instances of (18) and (20).^ $5.8 Hempel's explanation of the paradoxes of confirmation as arising from (i) faulty views concerning the reference of universal conditionals and ( i i ) improper intrusion of extra information, is not found to be satisfactory by some, and alternative proposals are advanced. For example, 12 J. W. N. Watkins argues that the paradoxes are avoidable i n the context of a "Popperian theory" of confirmation. On such a theory, not a l l con-firming instances, but only those which provide a satisfactory test of a hypothesis confirm that hypothesis. For instance, (7) confirms (6) not because (7) is an instance of (6), but because i t represents an un-successful attempt at f a l s i f y i n g (6). The same cannot be said of (10) and ^~\iy aim here has been to get at the essentials of the different c r i t e r i a of confirmation. Hence, the account here presented of Hempel's criterion i s rather oversimplified and bypasses many finer points. In particular, i t ignores certain defects of the criterion, acknowledged by Hempel himself in his 1965 postscript, namely: (a) that i t is too r e s t r i c -tive and does not allow for the confirmation of hypotheses involving an i n f i n i t e domain; (b) that i t c l a s s i f i e s as neutral certain instances which are normally regarded as confirmatory; (c) that the consistency condition i t requires is too strong; and (d) that i t has, after a l l , to be based on the concept of quantitative confirmation. 12 See Watkins 1957 and Watkins 1958. 189 so i t , -though an instance of (6), cannot be said to confirm (6). The intu i t i v e l y f e l t inequality between (7) and (10) is thus not a psycho-logical myth as Hempel thought, but is based on objective features of the instances themselves: one represents a satisfactory test, the other does not (Scheffler 1963:269-70). The d i f f i c u l t y with this view, however, is that Watkins accepts not only the equivalence condition but also the equivalence of (6) and (11). This acceptance immediately leads to the paradoxes of confirma-tion. For, (7) must confirm not only (6) but also (11) which is equivalent to i t , and so must (10) confirm (6) . Watkin's claim as to the superiority 13 of a "Popperian theory" is thus untenable. In particular, i t f a i l s as an effective criticism of Hempel's position. $5.9 A more serious criticism of theories lik e Hempel's comes from Goodman. Goodman (1965:70-71) points out that "logically equivalent statements may have contraries which are not logically equivalent to one another" (Scheffler 1963:288). Hence, positive instances which confirm equivalent hypotheses may have no systematic confirming relationships with their contraries, and i t turns out that on Hempel's view an instance may confirm both a hypothesis and i t s contrary. For example, (10) ^Ra & ^Ba As a matter of fact, Watkins withdrew this view later in favor of a revised version. In the latter, he acknowledges the paradoxes, but insists that (1) his theory is less paradoxical than Hempel's, and (2) that the paradoxes are not harmless as Hempel thinks. These details, however, are not of importance for my purpose. See Scheffler 1963:271-78. 190 confirms (6) (x) (Rx -> Bx) and also i t s contrary (32) (x) (Rx -> ^Bx) But (7) Ra & Ba confirms (6) but disconfirms (32). Again, (7) confirms both (11) (x) (^Bx -* ^Rx) and i t s contrary (33) (x)(^Bx + Rx) But (10) confirms only (11) and disconfirms (33). Further, (34) -vffa v Ba confirms both (6) and (11) but neither of their contraries (32) and (33). Worse s t i l l , (9) ^Ra & Ba confirms both (6) and (11) and their contraries (32) and (33). It should be noticed that while (6) and (11) are equivalent, their contraries (32) and (33) are not. 191 These d i f f i c u l t i e s show that "the paradoxes are not wholly i l l u s o r y but a r i s e out of i n t u i t i o n s marking objective d i s t i n c t i o n s of a l o g i c a l s o r t " ( S c h e f f l e r 1963:288). In p a r t i c u l a r , they show that (10) does not have the same confirmatory status as (7) i n r e l a t i o n to (6), since (10) confirms also the contrary of (6) while (7) does not. The same can be s a i d of (7) i n r e l a t i o n to (11). Hempel's idea that the paradoxes are a subjective myth, and that reports l i k e (7) and (10) have the same confirmatory status i n r e l a t i o n to (6) i s thus undermined. There i s not much point i n regarding an instance as p o s i t i v e when i t confirms two incompatible hypotheses. (10), therefore, cannot be accorded the same l o g i c a l status as (7). One may attempt to avoid these d i f f i c u l t i e s by s u i t a b l y r e s t r i c t -ing the concept of confirmation. One may say, f o r example, that an instance I confirms a hypothesis H i f and only i f I confirms H but not i t s contrary (Ackermann 1966:20). But such attempts would be f u t i l e so long as the equivalence condition i s accepted. For, i n the l a t t e r case even s e l e c t i v e confirmation (as t h i s r e s t r i c t e d notion of confirmation i s c a l l e d ) leads to equally unacceptable r e s u l t s . For example, (7) s e l e c t i v e l y confirms (6) but does not s e l e c t i v e l y confirm (11) which i s equivalent to (6); and (10) s e l e c t i v e l y confirms (11) but not i t s equiva-l e n t (6). They thus v i o l a t e the demand that a given evidence must have the same confirmatory r e l a t i o n s h i p to l o g i c a l l y equivalent hypotheses. The notion of s e l e c t i v e confirmation seems, prima facie, p l a u s i b l e , but i t can be retained only at the cost of the equivalence condition. There i s thus some point, a f t e r a l l , i n Nicod's not having incorporated the l a t t e r i n h i s account! 192 $ 5 . 1 0 Let me now r e t u r n to the Nn theory of c o n f i r m a t i o n . I t should be c l e a r from my e a r l i e r remarks about how a perv a s i o n i s e s t a b l i s h e d according to the NNs ($$ 4.14-16) that what the NNs c a l l a d i s a g r e e i n g i n s t a n c e (vipaksa) i s a l s o , l i k e an agreeing i n s t a n c e , a p o s i t i v e or conf i r m i n g i n s t a n c e , w h i l e an i n s t a n c e of d e v i a t i o n (vyabhiaara) i s a nega t i v e or d i s c o n f i r m i n g i n s t a n c e . Moreover, an i n s t a n c e f o r the NNs i s not a sentence but an obje c t l i k e a k i t c h e n or a l a k e . In so f a r as the NNs t h e o r e t i c a l l y s t i p u l a t e t h a t to confirm a hypothesis (of the p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a p o s i t i v e v a r i e t y ) both agreeing and d i s a g r e e i n g i n s t a n c e s are necessary, a confirming i n s t a n c e , s t r i c t l y speaking, cannot be a 14 s i n g l e e n t i t y , but a p a i r of e n t i t i e s . Some Buddhists r e a l i s e t h i s and mention both the e n t i t i e s (Stcherbatsky 1962a:281-82). The NNs, however, mention only one of them i n 'example' and the other i s to be understood. The NN's theory of c o n f i r m a t i o n i m p l i c i t i n t h e i r demand that a p e r v a s i o n be confirmed by means of both agreeing and d i s a g r e e i n g i n s t a n c e s may now be cons t r u c t e d as f o l l o w s : With respect to hypotheses expressed i n the form of u n i v e r s a l c o n d i t i o n a l s , a p a i r of ob j e c t s c o n s t i t u t e s i . a co n f i r m i n g i n s t a n c e i f and only i f one of the ob j e c t s s a t i s -f i e s both the antecedent and the consequent (of the expression f o l l o w i n g the q u a n t i f i e r ) , and the other s a t i s f i e s n e i t h e r ; only f o r u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e and ($ 5.15). I t would be a s i n g l e e n t i t y u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasions 193 i i . a disconfirming instance (i.e., an instance of deviation (vyabhicara)) i f and only i f either object satisfies the antecedent but not the consequent; i i i . a neutral instance i f and only i f i t neither confirms, nor disconfirms a hypothesis. These definitions may be elucidated with the help of the notion of an observation report: A pair of objects {a b} constitutes i . a confirming instance of (6) or (11) i f and only i f either of the observational reports (35) (Ra cS Ba) & (^Rb & ^Bb) or (36) (^Ra & ^Ba) & (Rb & Bb) is true; i i . a disconfirming instance i f and only i f the observational report (37) (Ra & ^Ba) or (38) (Rb & ^Bb) is true; and hence i f and only i f one of the following (39) (Ra & Ba) & (Rb & ^Bb) 194 (40) (Ra & ^Ba) & (Rb & ^Bb) (41) (^Ra & Ba) <S (Rb & ^Bb) (42) (V?a & ^Ba) & (Rb & ^Bb) (43) (Ra <5 ^ Ba) & (Rb & Bb) (44) (Ra & ^Ba) & (^Rb & Bb) (45) (Ra & ^Ba) & (^Rb & ^Bb) is true; and f i n a l l y , i i i . a neutral instance i f and only i f neither (35) and (36) nor (37) and (38) hold; and hence i f and only i f any of the following holds: (46) (Ra & Ba) & (Rb & Bb) (47) (Ra & Ba) & (^Rb & Bb) (48) (^Ra & Ba) & (Rb & Bb) (49) (^Ra & Ba) <S (^Rb & Bb) (50) (^Ra & Ba) & (^Rb & ^Bb) (51) (^Ra <5 ^ Ba) & (^Rb & Bb) (52) (V?a & ^Ba) & (*Rb & ^Bb) 195 If, instead of entities, one regards, following Hempel, observation reports themselves as instances, then (35) and (36) would be confirming instances; (39)-(45) would be disconfinning instances; and (46)-(52) would be neutral instances. Since the atomic parts 'Ra' 'Rb' 'Ba' and 'Bb' in the sentences (35)-(52) can be either true or false, there are in a l l only sixteen p o s s i b i l i t i e s , as represented in the following table: TABLE I CONFIRMATORY STATUS OF OBSERVATION REPORTS Truth Value Confirmatory Status Ra Ba Rb Bb T T T T N T T T F D T T F T N T T F T C T F T T D T F T F D T F F T D T F F F D F T T T N F T T F D F T F T N F T F F N F F T T C F F T F D F F F T N F F F F N (C = confirming, D = disconfinning, N = neutral, T = true, F = false). It can be seen that there are two C's ((35) and (36)), seven D's ((39)-(45)) and seven N's ((46)-(52)). 196 $5.11 For the NNs, a pervasion i s a cognition and thus, an extra l i n g u i s t i c e n t i t y . To s i m p l i f y the comparison of the Nn theory of confirmation with the contemporary theories, l e t me regard i t i n the present context ( i . e . , $$ 5.11-15) as a sentence. With t h i s s t i p u l a t i o n , the Nn view, as reconstructed above, agrees with Nicod's ( i ) i n being l i m i t e d to u n i v e r s a l c o n d i t i o n a l s ; ( i i ) i n regarding an instance as an extra l i n g u i s t i c e n t i t y and thus construing confirmation as a semantic r e l a t i o n ; and ( i i i ) i n having the same notion of a disconfirming instance. I t d i f f e r s from Nicod's view ( i ) with regard to what i s a confirming and hence with regard to what i s a n e u t r a l instance; ( i i ) i n admitting d i s -agreeing instances and the equivalence condition, though the f u l l scope of the l a t t e r i s not r e a l i s e d ($$ 4.11-15). Despite i t s admission of disagreeing instances, the Nn view escapes the paradoxical r e s u l t of Nicod's view, namely, that a given evidence can f a i l to confirm equiva-l e n t hypotheses: i t s d e f i n i t i o n of a confirming instance ensures that the same observation report confirms both a hypothesis and i t s contra-p o s i t i v e . I t also ensures that a t o t a l l y unrelated object ( i . e . , a disagreeing instance, vipaksa) cannot by i t s e l f confirm a hypothesis. Hence, the pleasant prospect of confirming a s c i e n t i f i c hypothesis without l e a v i n g one's desk ($ 5.5) i s no longer there. Thus, Hempel's f i r s t paradox also i s avoided. The consequence that (7) and (46) do not confirm (6) and that (10) and (52) do not confirm (11) might seem strange, but i t d i r e c t l y follows from the Nn requirement, responsible f o r avoiding Hempel's f i r s t paradox, that f o r confirming a pervasion both agreeing and disagreeing instances are necessary. One can avoid the consequence only by g i v i n g up that 197 requirement (as the NNs themselves do i n the s p e c i a l cases of u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e and'universally c o n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasions (fn 5.14, $5.15)). But then, one has to accept the r e s u l t i n g paradox as w e l l . By r e q u i r i n g , i n theory at l e a s t , that both agreeing and d i s -agreeing instances must be considered while confirming a hypothesis, the NNs, i n e f f e c t , achieve two things, though, perhaps, without r e a l i s i n g i t , namely, (a) to guard against i l l e g i t i m a t e i n t r u s i o n of extra informa-t i o n independently obtained; (b) to insure that the t o t a l evidence i s taken i n t o account. (b) means that no evidence should be i n f o r m a l l y admitted; a l l relevant evidence must be formally and e x p l i c i t l y stated and assessed before a r e g u l a r i t y i s r a t i o n a l l y projected. The importance of (a) i s , as noticed e a r l i e r ($$ 5.6-7) e f f e c t i v e l y brought out by Hempel; that of (b) i s in d i c a t e d below ($ 5.12) by the notion of p o s i t i v e confirmation. While my i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Nn theory of confirmation avoids Hempel's f i r s t paradox, i t does not avoid h i s second paradox, namely, that two contradictory reports confirm the same hypothesis. For, (35) and (36) are contradictory reports and yet confirm e i t h e r of (6) and (11). As f o r Hempel's t h i r d paradox that "Ra" confirms "(x)Rx" and that "Ba" confirms "(x)Bx"} i t i s beyond the scope of the Nn theory which i s l i m i t e d , as remarked above, to u n i v e r s a l conditionals only. Hempel's theory even wi t h i n the l i m i t e d f i e l d of u n i v e r s a l conditionals i s unacceptable to the NNs because i t i s too weak and allows reports that would be neutral on the Nn theory to confirm a hypothesis. For example, (7), (10) and (46)-(52) are a l l n e u t r a l to (6) and (11) on 198 t h e Nn t h e o r y , b u t t u r n o u t t o be c o n f i r m i n g on Hempel's t h e o r y , s i n c e a l l o f them l o g i c a l l y i m p l y t h e C-development of b o t h (6) and ( 1 1 ) . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e two t h e o r i e s may be summarised as f o l l o w s : i . E v e r y c o n f i r m i n g i n s t a n c e on t h e Nn t h e o r y i s a l s o a c o n f i r m i n g i n s t a n c e on Hempel's t h e o r y b u t n o t c o n v e r s e l y , i i . E v e r y d i s c o n f i r m i n g i n s t a n c e on t h e Nn t h e o r y i s a l s o a d i s c o n f i r m i n g i n s t a n c e on Hempel's t h e o r y and c o n v e r s e l y . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t whenever an i n s t a n c e b o t h c o n f i r m s and d i s c o n f i r m s a h y p o t h e s i s , i t i s t o be t a k e n o n l y as d i s c o n f i r m i n g i t . Hence, though ( 3 9 ) , ( 4 3 ) , ( 4 4 ) , and (45) a p p e a r b o t h t o c o n f i r m and d i s c o n f i r m (6) and ( 1 1 ) , t h e y a r e t o be t a k e n t o be o n l y d i s c o n f i r m i n g . D i s c o n f i r m a t i o n i s a s t r o n g e r n o t i o n t h a n c o n f i r m a t i o n , and when accompanied by t h e l a t t e r , n u l l i f i e s i t . i i i . E v e r y n e u t r a l i n s t a n c e on Hempel's t h e o r y i s a n e u t r a l i n s t a n c e on t h e Nn t h e o r y as w e l l b u t n o t c o n v e r s e l y . F o r example, none o f the r e p o r t s ( 4 6 ) - ( 5 2 ) i s a n e u t r a l i n s t a n c e on Hempel's t h e o r y . $ 5 . 1 2 On my i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e Nn t h e o r y w i t h i n i t s l i m i t e d range o f a p p l i c a t i o n a v o i d s t h e s e r i o u s c r i t i c i s m t h a t a g i v e n e v i d e n c e c o n f i r m s two i n c o m p a t i b l e h y p o t h e s e s . F o r example, the r e p o r t s (35) and (36) c o n f i r m (6) and (11) b u t n o t t h e i r c o n t r a r i e s n o r t h e i r c o n t r a d i c t o r i e s . The Nn t h e o r y , o f c o u r s e , has t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s as w e l l : 199 i . (7) i s neutral to both (6) and (11), but i s n e u t r a l to only one of t h e i r contraries (32) and (33) and disconfirms the other. i i . (8) disconfirms both (6) and (11), but i s ne u t r a l to both of t h e i r c o n t r a r i e s , i i i . (9), l i k e (7), i s n e u t r a l to both (6) and (11), and also to t h e i r c ontraries (32) and (33). i v . (10), l i k e (7) and (9), i s n e u t r a l to both (6) and (11), but disconfirms (33) and i s n e u t r a l to (32). But these r e s u l t s show only what i s true of any confirmation theory, namely, that an observation report does not have any systematic r e l a t i o n -ship with the contraries of the equivalent hypotheses i t confirms. They do not a f f e c t the r e s u l t , of the Nn theory, that no instance can confirm two incompatible hypotheses, nor the r e s u l t that i f an instance confirms a hypothesis, i t also confirms i t s equivalent. In so far as the Nn theory of confirmation escapes the c r i t i c i s m that a given evidence confirms two incompatible hypotheses, i t amounts to what i n present confirmation theory i s c a l l e d ' p o s i t i v e confirmation'. The notion of p o s i t i v e confirmation i s a refinement of that of s e l e c t i v e confirmation designed to escape the c r i t i c i s m , j u s t mentioned, to which the l a t t e r i s open. Ackermann (1966:23) defines i t thus: " I f evidence i s such that some hypothesis i s compatible with i t , but a l l of the contraries of that hypothesis are incompatible with the evidence or with known cases of i n d i v i d u a l s not formally part of the evidence, the hypothesis 200 i s said to be p o s i t i v e l y confirmed by the e v i d e n c e " . ^ The idea behind p o s i t i v e confirmation i s that the contingency of the same evidence confirming contrary hypotheses a r i s e s , because c e r t a i n relevant informa-t i o n i s taken f o r granted and l e f t out. In other words, i t i s inf o r m a l l y admitted, but not formally stated. I f i t i s also formally stated, the contingency could be avoided. As I pointed out above ($ 5.11), the Nn requirement that both disagreeing as w e l l as agreeing instances be stated avoids the contingency j u s t i n t h i s way. $ 5.13 That the same evidence confirms two incompatible hypotheses i s a serious objection to a theory of confirmation. In so f a r as the notion of p o s i t i v e confirmation (and hence, the Nn notion of confirmation) aims at circumventing t h i s objection, i t might appear that i t can, a f t e r a l l , provide the basis f o r a s a t i s f a c t o r y theory of confirmation. Unfortunately, however, i t has been found that i t cannot do so. I t seems to be s a t i s -f a c tory only i n r e l a t i v e l y simple cases. As soon as complicated cases are brought i n , the danger of the same evidence l i c e n s i n g incompatable hypotheses or predictions reappears. This f a c t i s h i g h l i g h t e d by the famous 'grue-bleen paradox' of Nelson Goodman. Goodman introduces two unusual predicates, namely, 'grue' and 'bleen'. He defines them as follows: Since a contrary has i n f i n i t e l y many equivalents, a hypothesis can always be said to have an i n f i n i t e number of c o n t r a r i e s . Also, a l l the contraries of equivalent sentences can be s a i d to be the contraries of any one of the equivalent sentences. 201 "x i s grue" = df "x i s observed and found to be green before a c e r t a i n time t and blue during or a f t e r t " . "cc i s bleen" = df "x i s observed and found to be blue before t but green during or a f t e r t". In order to see the paradox Goodman wants to bri n g out, imagine a member a of a community who t a l k the grue-bleen language; and suppose a person b3 speaking our language, observes a thousand emeralds j u s t before t and finds them a l l green. On a theory l i k e Hempel's, or Nicod's, b can then project the hypothesis, (53) A l l emeralds are green; and hence, i n p a r t i c u l a r , i (53) A l l emeralds observed a f t e r t are green. The same p r o j e c t i o n can be made on the basis of the Nn theory, supposing t r i v i a l l y , that b also observes some non-green things and finds them a l l to be non-emeralds. Now, on the basis of the same evidence as observed by b, a would project the hypothesis (54) A l l emeralds are grue; and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , (54) A l l emeralds observed a f t e r t are grue. For, on h i s d e f i n i t i o n of 'grue', the observed evidence would a l l be grue. However, i f tran s l a t e d i n t o our blue-green language, a's hypothesis i (54) would be (55) A l l emeralds observed a f t e r t are blue, 202 since during or a f t e r t an emerald would be grue j u s t i n case i t i s blue, i C l e a r l y , (53) and (55) are incompatible (Goodman 1965:74). It may be objected that 'grue' and 'bleen' are not l e g i t i m a t e predicates; that they are not purely q u a l i t a t i v e l i k e 'green' and 'blue' i n so f a r as they involve a reference to time. This objection, however, i s untenable, since i t can be turned against the s o - c a l l e d l e g i t i m a t e predicates l i k e 'green' and 'blue' as w e l l . For, the l a t t e r can them-selves be defined i n terms of 'grue' and 'bleen': "x i s green" = df "x i s observed and found to be grue before t and bleen during or a f t e r t " . "x i s blue" = df "x i s observed and found to be bleen before t and grue during or a f t e r t". There i s , thus, no c l e a r objective basis f o r preference of 'blue' and 'green' over 'grue' and 'bleen'. I f one s t a r t s with the former as b a s i c c o l o r words, one tends to regard the l a t t e r and the hypotheses they l i c e n s e as i l l e g i t i m a t e ; i f one s t a r t s with the l a t t e r , one tends to regard the former as i l l e g i t i m a t e . One, thus, has the s u r p r i s i n g r e s u l t that whether or not one finds a change i n a given s i t u a t i o n , or what r e g u l a r i t y one finds i n i t depends on the l i n g u i s t i c machinery used to describe that s i t u a t i o n (Skyrms 1966:58-59). It would not be so bad i f t h i s t o t a l l y d estructive r e s u l t were confined to a few i s o l a t e d cases; a c t u a l l y , however, i t extends to any evidence at a l l . Any evidence can confirm any hypothesis on any confirma-t i o n theory by the choice of appropriate predicates. For any hypothesis 203 whatever that one wants to project, one can always find a regularity i n the observed evidence that warrants i t . For example, on the basis of t the same evidence, not only (53) and (55), but also (56) A l l roses observed after t are blue can be projected by defining, say, 'emerose' as "x is an emerose" = df "x is observed and found to be an emerald before t and a rose during or after t". On the basis of this definition, the observed evidence about emeralds would confirm the hypothesis (57) A l l emeroses are grue and this, in our language would be the same as (56) (Goodman 1965:74, fn 10). 1 6 $5.14 In view of the all-embracing and serious consequence that "any thing confirms any thing", i t becomes of the utmost importance that not every observed regularity i s projected. A distinction must be made between those regularities that are projectible and those that are not. The former are 'law-like 1, and involve only 'well-behaved' predicates. The latter are 'accidental' and involve 'ill-behaved' predicates. The Nn *^See for a similar example Hempel 1965:50. Some other interesting examples are to be found in Skyrms 1966:61:66. 204 view, like other versions considered here of confirmation theory, i n -cluding the notion of positive confirmation, has no c r i t e r i a for such a distinction, though the NNs, like Hume, intuitively assume that they are concerned only with lawlike regularities. They define a pervasion simply as an association or coexistence of two properties ($$ 2.30, 4.1, 4.3, 4.9-10), and this definition i s wide enough to include any regularity at a l l . It, thus, opens the way to the 'new riddle of induction'. Hempel's account of confirmation i s purely syntactical and those of Nicod and the NNs are easily translatable into purely syntactical ones. Goodman's grue-bleen paradox, which illu s t r a t e s the 'new riddle of i n -duction' , conclusively shows that no purely syntactical account of confirmation is p o s s i b l e . ^ The formulation of the c r i t e r i a for distinguishing projectible regularities from unprojectible ones, is a very d i f f i c u l t task, and the attempts made in this regard are not met with general approval. Goodman locates these c r i t e r i a in the 'entrenchment' of the regularities, i.e., in the extent to which they have been used in previously projected generalisations. On this ground regularities about grue and bleen are ruled out as unprojectible. These further details, however, are not directly relevant to my aim in this Chapter which was mainly to set the Nn theory of confirmation in the context of recent developments in the f i e l d . That purpose is now completed with regard to a very large class of pervasions. It is yet to be pursued with regard to those special This is acknowledged by Hempel (1965:50). It was Hempel (1943) who f i r s t e x p l i c i t l y claimed that such a definition i s possible. 205 sorts of pervasions which I set aside i n the beginning of t h i s Chapter ($ 5.2). These are the u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e and u n i v e r s a l l y contra-p o s i t i v e pervasions. Let me, therefore, turn to them. $5.15 A u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e pervasion, according to the NNs, can be confirmed only by means of agreeing instances, since no disagreeing instances are pos s i b l e ($ 4.11, fn 5.4). Hence, the pervasion "What-ever i s knowable i s nameable" ($ 4.8), or symbolically, (60) (x) (Kx Nx) i s confirmed by the report (61) Ka & Na (see $ 5.11). A u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasion can be confirmed only by disagreeing instances, since i t has no agreeing instances ($ 4.12, fn 5.4). The Nn examples of inferences i n v o l v i n g u n i v e r s a l l y contra-p o s i t i v e pervasions show that the pervader i n such pervasions i s the absence of the probans of the inference i n question, and the pervadend i s the absence of the probandum. Hence, the pervasion, "Whatever does not d i f f e r from other things (than earth) has no smell" ($ 4.12), or symbolically, (62) (x) (^Dx ^Sx) i s confirmed by the report (63) ^Da & ^ Sa 206 Generalising from (60)-(63), i t can be seen that the NNs' d e f i n i t i o n s of instances i m p l i c i t i n t h e i r notions of u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e and u n i v e r s a l l y contrapositive pervasions are exactly the same as those of Nicod. That i s , an object a i s i . a confirming instance i f and only i f i t s a t i s f i e s both the antecedent and the consequent; i i . a disconfirming instance i f and only i f i t s a t i s f i e s the antecedent but not the consequent; i i i . a n e u tral instance i f and only i f i t does not s a t i s f y the antecedent i r r e s p e c t i v e of whether or not i t s a t i s f i e s the consequent. Thus, for these s p e c i a l types of pervasions, a s i n g l e object i s enough to constitute a confirming instance; while f o r the usual run of per-vasions, i . e . , those that are p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a p o s i t i v e , two objects are necessary for the same purpose. Since the d e f i n i t i o n s given above are the same as Nicod's, they give r i s e to the paradox that an evidence confirming a given hypothesis does not confirm i t s equivalent. However, the NNs r u l e out the p o s s i -b i l i t y of such a paradox by not accepting the equivalence condition i n these s p e c i a l cases. According to them, the law of c o n t r a p o s i t i o n does not hold i n these cases ($$ 4.11-13). $ 5.16 Pervasion, i t may be r e c a l l e d , i s defined by the NNs as an i n v a r i a b l e concomitance (sahacarya-niyama); but 'example' (udaharana), the t h i r d sentence of 10, which i s used to express i t contains also an expression r e f e r r i n g to an instance. An explanation of t h i s discrepancy i s already to be found i n $$ 4.27-29. I t i s b r i e f l y that an instance, whether agreeing or disagreeing, plays no r o l e i n the (deductive) i n f e r -ence i n which i t i s mentioned. The conclusion can be v a l i d l y i n f e r r e d even without i t . The NNs nevertheless mention an instance i n an 'example' i n order to show that a pervasion i s established by means of observed instances. In view of the f a c t that they did not separate induction from deduction t h i s i s understandable (cp fn 4.60). An i n t e r e s t i n g question that a r i s e s with regard to an instance i s whether i t i s to be taken as an i n d i v i d u a l or as a c l a s s . Textual evidence i s not much help here: an instance i s expressed by words l i k e 'kitchen' and 'lake'. Since Sanskrit does not have a r t i c l e s , these could be taken as r e f e r r i n g to e i t h e r an i n d i v i d u a l or a set of i n d i v i -duals depending on the context. Modern i n t e r p r e t e r s of Nyaya do not usually r a i s e t h i s question, but seem to assume without argument that an instance i s an i n d i v i d u a l (cf Radhakrishan 1927:86; S t a a l 1960:634-37). Potter (1963:60-61), however, takes i t as a c l a s s . He says: " . . . kitchen i s the class of a l l kitchens . . . lake i s the class of a l l lakes". Potter i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y t a l k i n g about the NNs' views, but the notions of agreeing and disagreeing instances, l i k e those of probans and probandum, are the same i n t h i s respect f o r a l l Indian schools of philosophy. 18 vyapti-pratipaadkam udaharcmam. "'Example' i s that which propounds pervasion". TD 46. 208 However, i f an instance i s taken as a c l a s s , i t f a i l s to serve the purpose for which i t i s (primarily at any rate) intended. The purpose of an instance, whether agreeing or disagreeing, i s to provide observational support for a pervasion. This should be c l e a r from my dis c u s s i o n of the Nn theory of pervasion (esp $$ 4.14-17, 5.2). But, i f an instance i s taken as a c l a s s e s p e c i a l l y with an i n f i n i t e , or even i n d e f i n i t e l y large, though f i n i t e , membership, i t i s ( p h y s i c a l l y ) impossible to observe a l l the members. I f kitchen and lake are taken to be c l a s s e s , they would surely be classes with a very large membership that i s p h y s i c a l l y impossible to count. So, any evidence-statement about them could not be an observational report i n Hempel's sense. I t has to involve q u a n t i f i e r s and must be expressed as, for example (64) A l l kitchens having smoke have f i r e ; or symbolically, (64) (x)((Kx & Sx) Fx). But t h i s , being a u n i v e r s a l c o n d i t i o n a l , i s i t s e l f a pervasion, and can no more be enlightening regarding the process of induction than the pervasion which i t i s intended to support, namely, (65) A l l things that have smoke have f i r e ; or symbolically, (65) (x)(Sx •* Fx) . I t only pushes back the question, "How i s a pervasion established?" i n -stead of answering i t . Hence, i n order to make sense of the Nn theory of induction, an instance must be taken as an i n d i v i d u a l . That i t should be so taken i s also c l e a r from the e l l i p t i c a l form of ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' and conclusion ($$ 4.25-29). 209 $5.17 The subject of pervasion engages the at t e n t i o n of the NNs so much that other subjects i n t h e i r theory of inference pale i n t o i n s i g n i f i c a n c e beside i t . A huge amount of l i t e r a t u r e has grown around i t . Gangesa, f or example, considers as many as twenty-nine d e f i n i t i o n s of pervasion and h i s commentators are equally preoccupied with the subject. Inference, as t e c h n i c a l l y defined by the NNs, i s only formal inference as i l l u s t r a t e d by IS^ I®2* e t c * Wh a t i s today c a l l e d inductive inference i s not regarded by them as inference. Yet, t h e i r l o g i c a l theory presents the strange spectacle that t h e i r discussion of induction overshadows that of deduction. This anomaly i s to be explained with reference to the Nn b e l i e f that inference i s a means of true cognition (pvama) only. I t i s , of course, p o s s i b l e to get a true conclusion from v a l i d inference with f a l s e premises. But the NNs r u l e out such a p o s s i b i l i t y , by confining t h e i r a t t e n t i o n to only formally v a l i d inferences, and by i n s i s t i n g that a l l 19 the members of an inference must be true. Thus, an inference f o r the NNs 20 i s by d e f i n i t i o n sound. They take f o r granted the notion of the formal v a l i d i t y of an argument, but pay much att e n t i o n to the truth of the 1 9 I n g a l l s 1951:34; Goekoop 1967:10; Schayer 1933a:249; Radhakrishnan 1927:78. 20 Following some l o g i c i a n s , I am using the word 'sound' i n a rather t e c h n i c a l sense: an inference i s sound i f and only i f i t i s (a) formally v a l i d , and (b) has only true elements. Cf Copi 1968:25. This sense should be distinguished from another sense of 'sound': a system of d e r i v a t i o n (or of rules of inference) i s sound, j u s t i n case i f A i s derivable from f, A i s a consequence of r (where A and r are, r e s p e c t i v e l y , any formula and any set of formulas of the system i n question). 210 elements. Since the cognition expressed by 'reason' (hetu) i s supposed to be known through perception (another means of knowledge), i t s truth i s assured. Pervasion goes beyond perception, and cannot i t s e l f be est a b l i s h e d , without c i r c u l a r i t y , by (deductive) inference. I t becomes, therefore, necessary f o r the NNs to know what p r e c i s e l y i t i s , and how i t s t r u t h i s est a b l i s h e d . This i s how they are led i n t o a prolonged discussion of the subject. True, much of the discussion i s influenced by metaphysics. Gangesa, f or instance, r e j e c t s a l l d e f i n i t i o n s of per-vasion based on non-deviation (avyabhicaritatva) on the ground that they 21 are not ap p l i c a b l e to u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e pervasions. Also, as noted e a r l i e r ($$ 2.8, 4.19, fn 4 .60), the NNs do not make any d i s t i n c t i o n between necessary and contingent sentences. Nevertheless, t h e i r o v e r a l l emphasis i s on how contingent (universal) sentences are established and to t h i s extent t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n of pervasion i s properly construed as concerned with induction. The i n c l u s i o n i n the 'example' of an expression r e f e r r i n g to an instance i s a reminder of t h i s f a c t ($$ 4.14-16, 4.27, 5.16). TC 2.28-31, 50-52; M a t i l a l 1968b:532; Goekoop 1967:18. Cp $$ 4.11, 5.1. CHAPTER VI FORMS AND FALLACIES OF INFERENCE $6.1 I remarked i n the l a s t Chapter (fn 5.4), on the two-fold d i s -t i n c t i o n between a p o s i t i v e inference and a c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference which i s i m p l i c i t i n the t h r e e - f o l d d i s t i n c t i o n made by the NNs between a u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e inference, a u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference, and a p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference. The two-fold d i s t i n c t i o n cuts across the t h r e e - f o l d d i s t i n c t i o n : a p o s i t i v e inference may be e i t h e r u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e or p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a p o s i t i v e . A c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference may be e i t h e r u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e or p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a p o s i t i v e . This i s so because u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e and u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inferences are metaphysical i n character ($ 4.11-13), and do not represent independent l o g i c a l forms (fn 5.4). A u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e inference i s n e c e s s a r i l y a p o s i t i v e inference and a u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference i s n e c e s s a r i l y a c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference. The d i s t i n c t i o n between a p o s i t i v e inference and a contra-p o s i t i v e inference i s a formal d i s t i n c t i o n and comes out as such i n the Vedantins' and the Mimamsakas' controversy with the NNs with regard to the kinds of inferences to be admitted. In t h i s controversy, the expression 'contrapositive (vyatireki) inference' i s used to r e f e r i n d i f f e r e n t l y e i t h e r to what the NNs c a l l ' u n i v e r s a l l y c o n t r a p o s i t i v e ' or. to what they c a l l ' p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a p o s i t i v e ' . S i m i l a r l y , the expression ' p o s i t i v e (anvayi) inference' i s used to r e f e r i n d i f f e r e n t l y to e i t h e r a 212 u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e or a p o s i t i v e - c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference (Datta. 1960:228-28, 238-43; Chatterjee 1950:272).1 When a l l the elements of an inference are f u l l y stated as i n 109, a contrapositive inference i s obtained simply by r e p l a c i n g the p o s i t i v e pervasion of a given inference by i t s c o n t r a p o s i t i v e , and l e a v i n g the other elements unchanged ($ 4.9). However, when the given inference contains e l l i p t i c a l ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' and conclusion, complications a r i s e : i n p a r t i c u l a r , these e l l i p s e s have to be changed from a f f i r m a t i v e to negative (or conversely). Such complications can be overcome, as I pointed out e a r l i e r ($$ 4.25-29), only by ignoring the l i t e r a l meanings of the e l l i p t i c a l expressions. $ 6.2 The NNs pay much at t e n t i o n to the p o s i t i v e inferences but l i t t l e to c o n t r a p o s i t i v e ones. Their theory of inference i s evolved p r i m a r i l y with reference to the former. Nevertheless, the l a t t e r a lso are recog-nised as a d i s t i n c t kind (fn 5.4). However, t h i s r e c o g n i t i o n leads the NNs i n t o c e r t a i n awkward consequences. Let me s p e l l out these consequences i n some d e t a i l . I have maintained e a r l i e r ($ 4.1) that probandum and probans are, according to the NNs, to be determined with reference r e s p e c t i v e l y to t h e s i s and 'reason'. But Goekoop (1967:18, 21-23, 83, 107) has ^The Vedantins and the Mimamsakas accept only p o s i t i v e i n f e r -ences (excluding u n i v e r s a l l y p o s i t i v e ones), and include c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inferences i n an independent means of knowledge c a l l e d 'postulation' (arthapatti) (Chatterjee 1950:272; Datta 1960:222-28, 238-43; Radhakrishnan 1927:79). This means that they accept c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inferences and co n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasions only i n d i r e c t l y . 213 recently argued that according to Gangesa, they are to be determined with reference to pervasion. It is indeed true that Gangesa (TC 2.91-92) does say that probans and probandum are so determined, and in fact uses this as a ground for rejecting the twenty-one definitions that he discusses before giving his own f i n a l definition ( sid\ihantalaksana) in terms of relative and demonstrative pronouns ($ 5.1). These definitions, according to him, are circular because they are in terms of probans and probandum, which themselves can only be defined in terms of pervasion. For the same reason, the definitions given by later writers lik e Visvanatha and Annambhatta (discussed in $$ 4.3, 4.9) would be circular. However, despite Gangesa, the practice of defining pervasion i n terms of probans and pro-2 bandum is quite common among post-Gangesa NNs, and one wonders i f there i s not some good reason for this. I believe that there i s indeed a good reason, and that i t is to be found in connection with the NNs' recognition of contrapositive inferences as a distinct kind. $ 6.3 Consider again 10^ ($ 4.29). On Gangesa's view that probans and probandum are to be determined with reference to pervasion, the probans and the probandum of 10^ would be the absence of five and the absence of smoke respectively. But this would have the following consequences which I think, are not acceptable to the NNs: These NNs, though, are not always consistent in their use of terms. While they usually define pervasion in terms of probans and probandum, they also at times identify these with pervadend and per-vader. For instance, Annambhatta says, "The property of the subject's having the probans i s the property of the pervadend's occurrence in mountain etc." (fn 4.9), and Visvanatha observes, "'Consideration' is said to be the cognition of the occurrence in the subject of the per-vadend" (fn 4.45). 214 (1) The 'reason' of 100 would no longer be expressive of o probans as the NNs claim that i t i s (fn 4.S). The 'reason' correspond-ing to the absence of five as the probans would be i (2) Because i t (=this mountain) does not have f i r e ( i . e . , has the absence of f i r e ) , which i s very d i f f e r e n t from (2) of 10D. ( i i ) The thesis and the conclusion of 100 do not express the o cognition that the subject has probandum. The thesis and the conclusion corresponding to the absence of smoke as the probandum would be t (1) This mountain does not have smoke which i s once again not the same as (1) or (5) (excluding the word 'therefore') of 10Q. ( i i i ) I f the absence of five i s taken as probans and the absence of smoke as probandum, the corresponding ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' would be i (4) This mountain does not have f i r e , and whatever does not have f i r e does not have smoke, i But not only i s (4) d i f f e r e n t from (4) of 10 a > i t cannot have the con-es e l u s i o n of 10a as i t s l o g i c a l consequence as (4) of 100 does. The f i r s t o o t conjunct of (4) and the conclusion of 100 are c o n t r a d i c t o r i e s . o S i m i l a r d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s e also i n connection with the t r a d i t i o n a l western syllogism. The syl l o g i s m for instance, 215 S. 1. A l l drug-users are dim-witted 2. A l l hippies are drug-users .". 3. A l l hippies are dim-witted i s v a l i d , being i n the mood Barbara of the f i r s t f i g u r e . So i s the argument, i S. 1. No i n t e l l i g e n t (= non-dimwitted) persons are drug-users 2. A l l hippies are drug-users .'. 3. A l l hippies are dim-witted. i But (S) i s not a sy l l o g i s m (Keynes (1894:250-53), since i t v i o l a t e s an e s s e n t i a l requirement, namely, that a s y l l o g i s m must have three and only three terms. Even i f i t were admitted to be a syllogism, i t would have to be counted i n v a l i d because of the s y l l o g i s t i c rule that i f a premise be negative, so must the conclusion (Keynes 1894:243). Attempts are made, therefore, to reduce (S) to (S) by subjecting i t to c e r t a i n l o g i c a l opera-t i o n s , the s o - c a l l e d 'eductions'. For instance, by f i r s t 'converting' and then 'obverting' (1) of (S), (1) of (S) can be obtained, and (S) collapses i n t o (S). In the same manner, 100 can be reduced to J0 o. But such attempts are j u s t i f i e d only i f the inference-form underlying 10^ i s somehow believed to be superior. This b e l i e f i s inco n s i s t e n t so long as the inference-form represented by 100 i s also recognised as independent. $6.4 The d i f f i c u l t i e s pointed out above regarding a contr a p o s i t i v e i n -ference can a l l be avoided by taking probans and probandum as determined r e s p e c t i v e l y by 'reason' and t h e s i s . And th i s i s perhaps why, despite Gangesa, they are quite often so taken by post-Gangesa NNs, and th i s i s 216 3 also why I have maintained that they must be so taken. I f probans and pro-bandum are not determined with reference to pervasion, then the d e f i n i t i o n of pervasion given by Visvanatha and Annambhatta would not be c i r c u l a r . Nevertheless, there would s t i l l be good reason f o r d e f i n i n g i t i n terms of r e l a t i v e and demonstrative pronouns as Gangesa does, instead of i n terms of probans and probandum: such a d e f i n i t i o n would be completely general, not r e l a t i v e to inference ($ 5.1). A f t e r a l l , pervasion does not have to be an element of inference, though i t always can be. What i s e s s e n t i a l to i t i s that i t be about a l l the members of a c e r t a i n c l a s s . Gangesa's p r i n c i p l e of determining probans and probandum leads to these d i f f i c u l t i e s only with regard to a c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference. In the case of a p o s i t i v e inference, i t does not matter whether probans and proban-dum are defined with reference to pervasion or with reference to 'reason' and t h e s i s . Gangesa adopts his p r i n c i p l e of determination presumably because he has only p o s i t i v e inference i n mind. This i s perhaps i n d i c a t e d by h i s remark 4 that a c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inference i s f o r oneself only. $6.5 In both p o s i t i v e and c o n t r a p o s i t i v e inferences, the subject i s an i n d i v i d u a l ($ 4.1, cp fn 3.33).^ Also, i n both of them, thesis and My view means that probans and probandum are not to be always i d e n t i f i e d with pervadend and pervader r e s p e c t i v e l y , as i s done by, be-sides Goekoop, McDermott (1969:11, fn 39, 61), and perhaps Ingalls (1951: 36). Pervader and pervadend, of course, cannot be defined otherwise than with reference to pervasion ($ 4.8). 4 ayam ca vyatireki-prakdrah svartha eva ( c i t e d by Datta 1960:228, fn 1). ^Potter (1963:60) regards the subject of an inference as a u n i t -c l a s s . But according to the NNs, uniqueness of an object (vyaktyabheda) i s an impediment to class-character (jdtibadhaka) ($ 1.17), which means 217 ' a p p l i c a t i o n ' are, as pointed out e a r l i e r ($$ 3.21, 4.21, 4.23), l o g i c a l l y redundant and may be ignored along with the deductively i r r e l e v a n t instance. Hence, t h e i r l o g i c a l forms may be represented r e s p e c t i v e l y as: Sa (x)(Sx Fx) Fa;6 Sa (x) (^Fx -> ^Sx) Fa The Nn theory of non-referring expressions ($$ 2.8-9) makes i t c l e a r that for them there are no such things as empty c l a s s e s . U n i v e r s a l co n d i t i o n a l s for them, as f o r A r i s t o t l e , therefore, n e c e s s a r i l y carry e x i s t e n t i a l import. This import i s brought out i f (2) of F^ and (2) of F^ are represented as 4. (x)(Sx Fx) & (3x)Sx and that an i n d i v i d u a l , according to them, cannot be treated as a c l a s s (fn 1.35). See Goekoop (1967:5) for a d i f f e r e n t opinion. In modern set theory, a convention i s sometimes adopted of i d e n t i f y i n g a u n i t -class with i t s only member when that member i s an i n d i v i d u a l and not a c l a s s . See, f o r example, Quine (1963:32). ^Bochefiski (1961:440) also suggests the same formulation, though he does not give arguments. 218 5. (x)(^Fx -»- ^Sx) & (3x)^Fx respectively. However, such representation creates d i f f i c u l t i e s . The NNs undoubtedly accept (2) of F^ and (2) of as logically equivalent, and so the law of contraposition does hold for these pervasions. They also, equally undoubtedly, reject empty classes, so that universal con-ditionals necessarily have existential import. Yet the NNs would, I think, agree that (4) and (5) are not equivalent; which means that they would agree to reject the law of contraposition which they undoubtedly accept! Hence, instead of representing (2) of F^ and (2) of F^ as (4) and (5),^ I shall stipulate metalinguistically that for the NNs universal conditionals necessarily have existential implication. That i s , an adequate interpretation of a universal conditional must assign a non-empty set(s) to the predicate letter(s) occurring in the antecedent of the conditional following the quantifier. It i s obvious that F^ and are s y l l o g i s t i c i n character (fn 3.26). Even so, they cover only a fragment of the class of syllogis-t i c inferences. $ 6.6 There i s another form of inference, which also the NNs do not discuss much, but which yet emerges in their polemics with the Mimamsakas and Vedantins. Both the Mimamsakas and the Vedantins recognise postula-tion (artlaapatti) as an additional means of knowledge (pramana) (fn 6.1). For more details on the d i f f i c u l t i e s of this representation, see Hempel 1965:16-17; Scheffler 1963:261-63. 219 One of the examples of postulation i s : 1. Devadatta is alive, and he is not at home .'.2. He must be outside. That Devadatta must be outside is a postulation invoked to account for the two ascertained, yet apparently conflicting, facts, namely, that he is alive and that he is not at home. Among the reasons that the Mimamsakas and the Vedantins give for treating postulation as an indepen-dent means of knowledge and not regarding i t as inference are: (a) Postulation arises from a need to reconcile two conflicting data, while this is not so in the case of inference. (b) In postulation one never feels that one is inferring. In other words, introspection does not support the view that postulation is inference. (c) Postulation can only be reduced, i f at a l l , to contrapositive inference which is unaccept-g able (to them) (fn 6.1). The NNs see the weakness of these reasons, and assimilate postulation to inference (Chatterjee 1950:362-65). Visvanatha, for example, has this to say, a propos P^ : . . . where being alive is known to be pervaded by being either out-side or at home, there, when either (i.e., being outside or being at home) is being proved, being outside shines forth in |conclusion!, since being at home is contradicted,9 For further particulars on the Vedantins' reasons in support of postulation and their criticism of contrapositive pervasion and contra-positive inference, see Datta 1960:237-42, 222-29; Chatterjee 1950:361-67, 268-72. 9 . ._. yatra jivitasya bahihsattva-grhasattvanyatara-vyapyatvam grhitam ta trany a tar a-s iddhau jayamariayam grha-sattva-badhad bahihsattvam anurnitau bhasate (SM 144). 220 What Visvanatha says here amounts to the formulation of P. as 1. Whoever i s a l i v e must be e i t h e r at home or outside 2. Devadatta i s a l i v e and he i s not at home 3. He must be outside. The form of ? 2 i s F 3 1. (x)CAx -*• (Ex v Ox)) 2. Ad & ^Ed .*. 3. Od. The NNs also say that p o s t u l a t i o n i s not recognised because i t s purpose i s served by a contrapositive p e r v a s i o n . ^ They thereby seem to suggest that the purpose i s not served by a p o s i t i v e pervasion. This i s rather puzzling i n view of t h e i r own admission that every contra-p o s i t i v e pervasion has also a corresponding p o s i t i v e pervasion and conversely (barring the exceptions noted i n $$ 4.11-13); one would have thought that any purpose that i s served by a con t r a p o s i t i v e pervasion i s also served by the corresponding p o s i t i v e pervasion. In f a c t , i n connection with P.. Visvanatha mentions a p o s i t i v e pervasion.'''*' The pervasion i n P 9 10 arthccpattis tu naiva prcmanantccrcan isyatej vyatireka-vyapti--buddhya caritdrikd hi sd yatak. "Postulation i s not accepted as a separate means of knowledge, because C i t s ] purpose i s served by the cognition Cthat i s all c o n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasion". BP 144. 11 jivitasya bahiksattva-grha-sattvanyatcira-vyapyatvcan. See fn 6.9. 221 can of course be replaced by i t s c o n t r a p o s i t i v e , but nothing i s gained by doing so. $6.7 Another example of p o s t u l a t i o n considered by Visvanatha i s t h i s : P^ 1. Devadatta i s f a t , but he does not eat by day .'.2. He must be eating by night. Visvanatha explains t h i s example by saying: In |The f a t Devadatta does not eat by day| e t c . , since eating i s the pervader of fatness, eating i s proved, Candl since eating by day i s contradicted, eating by night i s proved . . . " . ^ What Visvanatha says amounts to a chain of two arguments: P, 1. Whoever i s f a t eats 4 2. Devadatta i s f a t .*. 3. Devadatta eats. P^ 1. E i t h e r Devadatta eats by day or he eats by night 2. He does not eat by day .*. 3. He eats by night. These two arguments can be combined i n t o a s i n g l e inference: 12 pino Devadatto diva na bhunkte ityadau pinatvasya bhojana-vyapya-tvdvagamad bhojana-siddhau diva-bhojana-badhe rdtvi-bhoQanam siddhyati . . . (SM 144; cf TD 63, Athalye:349-50). 222 1. Whoever is fat eats by day, or eats by night 2. Devadatta is fat, and does not eat by day . 3 . Devadatta eats by night, which i s exactly parallel to F^, and has the same form namely F^. The passage quoted above from Visvanatha once again suggests that the pervasion involved i s positive rather than contrapositive. Staal (1962a:645) represents what, according to the NNs, is the reasoning involved i n postulation i n the form of the metatheorem, and says that the corresponding inference involves the use of a negative premise namely ,r^B -*• C. '^B -> C i s , of course, l o g i c a l l y equivalent to 'B v C'. But i t i s not cl e a r to me how '^>B -> C i s a premise, since i t s equivalent 'B v C i s only a part of a premise; nor on what basis '^B -> C (or 'B v C) i s to be regarded as negative, since both the di s j u n c t i v e s B and C i n the examples P„ and P, are p o s i t i v e . Even i f '^B C were granted to be negative, i t would not be a co n t r a p o s i t i v e pervasion as the NNs require. Again, Staal's theorem suggests that the reduction of p o s t u l a t i o n to inference i s merely a matter of s e n t e n t i a l l o g i c ; but i n so f a r as the NNs make a reference to pervasion, q u a n t i f i -c a t i o n a l l o g i c also i s involved. For these reasons, I f e e l that Staal's representation does not adequately b r i n g out the reasoning involved i n po s t u l a t i o n . A •> (B v C)3 A3*B \-C3 223 $6.8 ^2 F 3 a r e t* i e on^~y three inference-forms e x p l i c i t l y 13 recognised by the NNs. I t i s sometimes suggested that the Indian s y l l o g i s m i s r e a l l y what A r i s t o t l e c a l l s an argument from example. I t i s obvious that instances of F^, 7^ and F ^ cannot be c a l l e d 'arguments from example'. The suggestion does hold, however, with reference to 14 Gautama's ver s i o n of the sy l l o g i s m as represented by J O and T O . o O ($$ 4.25-26). A r i s t o t l e ' s i l l u s t r a t i o n of an argument from example i s t h i s : A 1. The war of Athens against Thebes i s e v i l 2. Because i t i s an aggressive war on neighbours 3. As the war of Thebes against Phocis i s . Ross 1957:487-88. A r i s t o t l e regards A as d i a l e c t i c a l , and i t i s , i n e s s e n t i a l s , the same as TOJ-J since i n J O the l a s t two sentences are redundant, o o Ross (1957:488) says that an argument from example i s not j u s t one inference, but a combination of two inferences namely, A^ 1. The war of Thebes against Phocis i s e v i l 2. The war of Thebes against Phocis i s an aggressive None of these forms, i t may be r e c a l l e d , occurs i n the NS, though a n t i c i p a t i o n s of F-j_ and F2 i n the form of J O ^ and TO^ do ($ 4.26). The NS (1.1.5) also mentions a d i f f e r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of inference i n t o purvavat, sesavat, and samanyatodrsta. See f o r an account of t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n Keith 1921:88-92; Chatterjee 1950:266-68; Dhruva 1922:251-85. Cf Athalye:278, 276-77; Keith 1921:27, 87; Randle 1930:179. 224 war on neighbours .".3. An aggressive war on neighbours is e v i l (which involves the fallacy of i l l i c i t minor), and 1. An aggressive war on neighbours is e v i l 2. The war of Athens against Thebes is an aggressive war on neighbours 3. The war of Athens against Thebes is e v i l . If an argument from example i s taken as a combination of two inferences, 10^ cannot be an argument from example. But I think that the text supports Ross only conditionally: i t i s only when an argument from example is expanded that i t becomes a combination of two inferences. As i t stands, i t is just one inference, viz. A. This, I think, is clear from what Aristotle says: Example then is inference from part to part (not from part to whole or conversely) when both f a l l within the same class and one i s well known (Warrington 1964:154). A^ i s an inference from 'part to whole' and is an inference from 'whole to part'. Only A is an inference from 'part to part'. It may be con-cluded, therefore, that Gautama's version of the Nyaya syllogism is indeed argument from example. * * * * * * * $ 6.9 Inference, according to the NNs, is a means of knowledge and as such, is by definition sound. That i s , i t i s not only formally valid, 225 but also m a t e r i a l l y j u s t i f i e d ($ 5.17). From t h i s i t would seem that the NNs would regard an inference as unsound e i t h e r when i t i s formally i n v a l i d or when i t i s m a t e r i a l l y u n j u s t i f i e d . In t r u t h , however, they do not even r a i s e the question of formal v a l i d i t y , or i n v a l i d i t y , * " * though the subject of f a l l a c i e s , l i k e that of pervasion, happens to be one of the most widely discussed i n t h e i r theory of inference. A l l the f a l l a c i e s discussed are m a t e r i a l , and concern the t r u t h or f a l s i t y of the elements of an inference. This i s presumably because the primary concern of the NNs i s with t r u t h (which they conceive as correspondence with r e a l i t y ) . The Nyaya term f o r a f a l l a c y i s 'hetvabhasa' ( l i t . 1[mere] appear-ance of probans'). A f a l l a c y i s defined as being the object of a true cognition that prevents |conclusion|.*^ Though there i s nothing i n t h i s d e f i n i t i o n to exclude formal f a l l a c i e s , i t i s i n p r a c t i c e taken to mean simply that from f a l s e premises no conclusion can be drawn, whether or not the argument i s formally v a l i d . $6.10 Since there are three e n t i t i e s i n an inference, namely, subject, probans and probandum, naming the f a l l a c i e s only a f t e r one of them ( i . e . , probans) might seem odd. But the Naiyayikas, understandably enough, regard probans as of s p e c i a l importance, since i t i s through probans that a Of course, they have no idea of v a l i d i t y as d i s t i n c t from formal v a l i d i t y . 16 animiti-prati-bandhaka-yattt hetvabhasatvam (TD 52). This i s Gangesa's d e f i n i t i o n as w e l l . 226 connection, or the lack of i t , i s established between the other two entities. Every fallacy i s , therefore, regarded as a breach of one or other of the conditions of a (good) probans (saddhetu). Five such conditions are mentioned: (i) The probans must occur in the subject (paksadharmata). ( i i ) It must occur only where the probandum occurs (sapaksasattva). ( i i i ) It must not occur where the probandum does not occur (vipdksasattva). (iv) It must not be 'contradicted' by facts (abadhita-visayatva). (v) It must not be 'contradicted' by another probans leading to the contradictory conclusion (asatpratipaksatva). If any of these five conditions i s violated, the result i s a fallacy.*^ It i s clear that the f i r s t condition i s designed to ensure the truth of 'reason' and the next two conditions that of 'example'. The second and the third conditions are equivalent except in the case of universally positive and universally contrapositive inferences. The second condition is not applicable to universally contrapositive inferences and the third is not applicable to universally positive inferences. The fourth and f i f t h conditions are logically implied by the f i r s t three, and therefore, are really superfluous. $6.11 The NNs recognise five types of fa l l a c i e s : (i) the fallacy of deviant probans (savyabhioara); ( i i ) the fallacy of contrary probans (viruddha); ( i i i ) the fallacy of counter probans (satpratipaksa); (iv) the fallacy of unproved probans (asiddha)', (v) the fallacy of contradicted Keith 1921:143; Chatterjee 1950:238-39, 282-83; Radhakrishan 1927:78-79. 227 probans (badhita) (TS 52, cf BP 71). Each of these f i v e f a l l a c i e s v i o l a t e s at l e a s t one, but often more than one, of the conditions of a (good) probans. I s h a l l discuss only the most i n t e r e s t i n g of them, 18 namely, the f a l l a c y of unproved probans. I t offends, d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , against the f i r s t or the second (and the t h i r d ) of the f i v e conditions. In order that a probans be 'proved' as such, two b a s i c conditions must be f u l f i l l e d : (a) i t must occur i n the subject; and (b) i t must be pervaded by the corresponding probandum. When e i t h e r of these conditions i s not s a t i s f i e d , a probans i s 'unproved'. The f i r s t c o n d i t i o n may f a i l to be s a t i s f i e d e i t h e r because the subject does not e x i s t , or because, even though i t does, the nature of the putative probans i s such that i t cannot occur i n i t . Corresponding to these two a l t e r n a t i v e s , the NNs For an account of the other four types of f a l l a c i e s , see Chatterjee 1950:284-88, 291-93, 143-46, 149-51. Cf Potter 1963:59-74. In addition to the f i v e f a l l a c i e s mentioned above, Gautama also discusses three other f a l l a c i e s of a purely d i a l e c t i c a l character. These are: (1) chala which consists i n two persons d e l i b e r a t e l y using an expression i n two d i f f e r e n t senses i n the same debate; (2) jati which consists i n r a i s i n g i r r e l e v a n t objections to a t h e s i s ; and (3) nigrahasthana which consists i n an adversary's preparing ground f o r h i s own defeat due e i t h e r to misunderstanding or to ignorance (Keith 1921: 154-56; Chatterjee 1950:293-96). The NNs hardly discuss these f a l l a c i e s , perhaps because of t h e i r b l a t a n t l y d i a l e c t i c a l character. But they do consider c e r t a i n other more i n t e r e s t i n g f a l l a c i e s u s u a l l y grouped under tarka. The ancient Naiyayikas recognise eleven kinds of tarka of which the NNs are s a i d to accept only f i v e (Athalye:358). These are, as mentioned i n fn 4.37, i n f i n i t e regress (anavastha), arguing i n a c i r c l e (cakraka), s e l f - r e s i d e n c e (atmasraya), mutual r e l i a n c e (anyonydsraya), veduotio ad absurdum (prarnana-badhitartha-prasahga). For some reason or other, however, these are not discussed i n connection with inference. See for an account of them, Potter 1963:78-83; NK s.v. tarka. 228 recognise two v a r i e t i e s of the present f a l l a c y , namely, asrayasiddha ( l i t . 'unproved because of l o c u s ' ) , and svarupdsiddha ( l i t . 'unproved because of i t s own nature'). The examples given of dsraydsiddha are: (1) |A sky-lotus i s fragrant because i t i s a l o t u s | (TS 56). (2) |The 19 golden mountain has f i r e because i t has smoke) (SM 72). In these cases, since the subject does not e x i s t at a l l , there i s no question of a putative probans occurring i n i t . The samples of svarupasiddha are (1) |Sound i s a q u a l i t y because i t i s occular| (TS 56). (2) |lhe lake i s a substance because i t has smoke| (SM 72). In e i t h e r of these cases the very nature of the putative probans precludes i t s occurrence i n the subject. The property of being oacular by i t s nature cannot occur i n sound, and smoke by i t s nature cannot occur i n the take. $6.12 The NNs also recognise a t h i r d v a r i e t y of the f a l l a c y of unproved probans. I t consists i n the f a i l u r e of condition (b) mentioned above, and i s c a l l e d vyapyatvasiddha ( l i t . 'unproved because of the absence of 20 pervadedness'). Whether or not a probans i s pervaded by the relevant probandum may be obvious or s e t t l e d by experience. But the NNs a l s o suggest a rather ingenious device of s e t t l i n g i t . The device consists i n discovering a condition c a l l e d 'accident' (upadhi). An accident i s 19 Arguments of t h i s type are, as pointed out e a r l i e r (fn 3.18), enthemematic. When f u l l y expanded, they w i l l contain f i v e sentences. Since the mentioning of a l l the f i v e sentences i s cumbersome, the NNs usu a l l y p r e f e r the enthemematic form. A f u l l - f l e d g e d s y l l o g i s m i s mentioned very r a r e l y as when a l l i t s members are under consideration. 20 -Sometimes t h i s v a r i e t y i s also c a l l e d anythasiddha (Chatterjee 1950:291). 229 defined as that which, while pervading the probandum f a i l s to pervade the 21 probans. For instance, i n the example |lhe mountain has smoke because i t has f i r e ] (TS 56), five i s probans and smoke probandum. That five i s not pervaded by smoke i s obvious, but i t can also be demonstrated by f i n d i n g an accident. The accident i n t h i s case i s contact with wet fuel (ardrendhana-samyoga). For, i t pervades the probandum: where there i s smoke there i s contact of f i r e with wet f u e l ; and i t f a i l s to pervade the probans: i t i s not the case that where there i s f i r e , i t i s i n contact with wet f u e l , as i s evidenced by a red-hot i r o n b a l l . I t may not be always easy to discover an accident. But once i t i s discovered, i t con-c l u s i v e l y e s t a blishes the f a i l u r e of the pervasion of a probans by the probandum. When a pervasion holds, the set of the l o c i of probans i s included (but not n e c e s s a r i l y , properly included) i n the set of the l o c i of probandum, and therefore, there can be no scope f o r an accident. A l l and only cases of f a i l u r e s of a pervasion involve the occurrence of an 21 sadhya-vydpakatve sati sddhandvydpaka upddhih (TS 56). Visvanatha also gives the same d e f i n i t i o n : sadhyasya vyapako yas tu hetor avydpakas tatha sa upddhir bhavet. "That i s accident which i s the pervader of the probandum and non-pervader of the probans". BP 138. And Gangesa says, yad vydbhicd.vitvena sddhanasya sddhya-vuabhicdritvam sa upddhih, "Accident i s that from whose de v i a t i o n [from probans] [ r e s u l t s ] the deviation of the probans from the probandum". (Cited i n Goekoop 1967:15, and i n NK s.v. upddhi). That i s , a probans deviates from the accident i f and only i f i t deviates from the probandum. 230 accident. And since t h i s t h i r d v a r i e t y of the f a l l a c y of unproved probans i s the r e s u l t of the f a i l u r e . o f a pervasion, i t i s defined as 22 one that involves an accident. $6.13 I t i s almost a u n i v e r s a l p r a c t i c e among modern Engl i s h w r i t e r s on Nyaya to regard an accident as that condition which so q u a l i f i e s a 23 probans as to r e c t i f y the f a i l u r e of a pervasion. The given probans, i t i s b e l i e v e d , f a i l s , as i t stands, to be pervaded by the probandum because i t does not incorporate the condition or the accident that would ensure i t s pervadedness. The pervasion of the given probans by the pro-bandum i s f a l s e ; but i t i s s a i d to be c o n d i t i o n a l l y true i n so f a r as the a d d i t i o n of the accident to the probans makes i t true. Accident then, according to these w r i t e r s , i s a means of generating from a f a l s e per-vasion a true one. To say that an accident i s a means of generating a true pervasion from a f a l s e one i s also to say that i t i s a means of generating a sound inference from an unsound one. For, as pointed out above, t h i s t h i r d form of the f a l l a c y of unproved probans consists j u s t i n the f a l s i t y of pervasion (and t h i s i s due to the f a c t that the set of the l o c i of probans and the set of the l o c i of probandum only p a r t i a l l y i n t e r s e c t ) , and i f t h i s flaw i s removed, the argument that r e s u l t s must be sound. Consider 22 sopadhiko vyapyatoasiddhah (TS 56). 2 3 S e e f o r instance: Athalye:307, 309, 312; Keith 1921:148; Chatterjee 1950:291; Goekoop 1967:14-15; Radhakrishnan 1927:80. 231 Annambhatta's example: [The mountain has moke because i t has f i r e | . By incorporating i n the probans the accident, contact with wet fuel, one has the true pervasion, |Where there is f i r e i n contact with wet fuel there is smoke|. Hence one can argue validly, |lhe mountain has smoke because i t has f i r e i n contact with wet fuel|. It i s indeed true that in the case of this particular example, the use of accident leads from a false pervasion to a true one, and hence from an unsound inference to a sound one. But, though this example has been a favorite one for the NNs, I think i t i s mistaken to generalise from i t , and to regard an accident as a means of converting an unsound inference into a sound one. There i s nothing in the NN texts which j u s t i f i e s such a view of accident. In fact, i t is easy to find examples which satisfy the Nn definition of accident, and yet cannot be used to generate a true pervasion from a false one, and hence cannot be used to generate a sound inference from an unsound one. Take for instance, the unsound inference, |This is a cow because i t i s an animal|. The inference is unsound because the suppressed pervasion namely, |Whatever is an animal is a cow| is obviously false. The property of having a t a i l satisfies the definition of an accident with reference to this unsound inference: i t pervades the probandum (cow) but does not pervade the probans (animal). Nevertheless, i t s incorporation in the probans does not lead to a true pervasion. The pervasion [whatever i s an animal with a t a i l i s a cow| is as false as |whatever is an animal is a cow|, there being other animals 24 with t a i l s than cows. The NNs are aware that an accident cannot be used See Kitagawa 1965:436-30 (the pages are numbered backwards). 232 as a means of converting an unsound inference i n t o a sound one. They conceive the ro l e of an accident negatively as c o n s i s t i n g i n demonstrat-ing the unsoundness of a given inference, and not i n leading to a sound 25 one. The view, therefore, of modern w r i t e r s which assigns a p o s i t i v e r o l e to accident does not seem to me to be r i g h t . I t i s presumably prompted by the stereotype example, [The h i l l has smoke because i t has f i r e | . 25 vyabhiaarasyanwnaham upadhes tu prayojanam. "The u t i l i t y of an accident l i e s i n [enabling!] the inference of deviation Cof probans from probandum]". BP 140. upddhis tu vyabhicara-jhdnadvard vyapti-jnTbva-piKztibandhakah. "An accident thwarts, by means of the cognition of deviation, the cognition of pervasion". TD 57. 233 CHRONOLOGICAL CHART OF AUTHORS Note: 1. Names are l i s t e d i n En g l i s h a l p h a b e t i c a l order. 2. Names are followed by sec t i o n numbers i n which the authors and t h e i r dates are f i r s t introduced. 3. Dates are very approximate. See fn 0.13. No. Name Date A f f i l i a t i o n 1. Annambhatta ($ 0.15) 17th century A.D. Nyaya-Vaisesika 2. Anandavardhana ($ 1.15) 9th century A.D. Grammarian 3. Bhartrhari ($ 1.12) ca 450 A.D. Grammarian 4. Devendrabuddhi ($ 0.12) ca 650 A.D. Buddhist 5. Dharmakirti ($$ 0.7, 0.9) 7th century A.D. Buddhist 6. Dharmottara ($ 0.12) ca 775 A.D. Buddhist 7. Dignaga ($$ 0.7-8) l a t e 5th century A.D. Buddhist 8. Gadadhara ($ 0.14) ca 1599-1703 A.D. Nyaya-Vaisesika 9. Gangesa ($ 0.13) ca 13th century A.D. Nyaya-Vaisesika 10. Gautama ($ 0.4) ca 200 A.D. Naiyayika 11. Helaraja ($ 2.17) 10th century A.D. Grammarian 12. Jagadisa ($$ 0.14-15) ca 1610 A.D. Nyaya-Vaisesika 13. Jayanta Bhatta ($ 0.12) ca 965 A.D. Naiyayika 14. Jinavardhana ($ 1.1) ca 1400-19 A.D. Nyaya-Vaisesika 15. Jinendrabuddhi ($ 0.12) ca 725 A.D. Buddhist 16. Jnanasrimitra ($ 0.12) ca 1040 A.D. Buddhist 234 No. Name Date A f f i l i a t i o n 17. Kalyanaraksita ($ 0.12) ca 829 Buddhist 18. Kamalasila ($ 0.12) ca 750 A.D. Buddhist 19. K a v i r a j a Visvanatha ($ 1.15) 14th century A.D. P o e t i c i a n 20. Katyayana ($ 1.12) ca 300 B.C. Grammarian 21. Kesava Misra ($ 0.15) ca 13th century A.D. Nyaya-Vaisesika 22. Kumarila Bhatta ($ 2.7) ca 7th century A.D. Mimamsaka • 23. Laugaksi Bhaskara ($ 0.15) 17th century A.D. Nyaya-Vaisesika 24. Mathuranatha ($ 0.14) ca 1600-75 A.D. Nyaya-Vaisesika 25. Nagarjuna ($ 0.6) ca 200 A.D. Buddhist 26. P a t a n j a l i ($ 1.12) ca 150 B.C. Grammarian 27. Panini ($ 1.12) ca 400 B.C. Grammarian 28. Prasastapada ($ 0.8) ear l y 6th century A.D. Va i s e s i k a 29. Punyaraja (Punjaraja) ($ 2.17) 15th century A.D. Grammarian 30. Raghunatha ($ 0.14) ca 1475-1550 A.D. Naiyayika 31. R a t n a k i r t i ($ 0.12) ca 1075 A.D. Buddhist 32. Ratnakarasanti ($ 0.12) ca 1040 A.D. Buddhist 33. Sahara ($ 1.17) 1st century A.D. Mimamsaka 34. Salikanatha ($ 2.10) ca 1000 A.D. Mimamsaka 35. Santaraksita ($ 0.12) 749 A.D. Buddhist 36. Si v a d i t y a ($ 0.12) l a t e 11th century A.D. Nyaya-Vaisesika 37. Sridhara ($ 0.12) ca 991 A.D. Vai s e s i k a 38. T r i l o c a n a ($ 1.5) 9th century A.D. Naiyayika 39. Udayana ($ 0.12) ca 1050 A.D. Nyaya-Vaisesika 235 No. Name Date A f f i l i a t i o n 40. Uddyotakara ($$ 0.6, 0.9) 41. Vallabha ($ 0.13) 42. Varadaraja ($ 0.15) 43. Vasubandhu $$$ 0.7-8) 44. Vacaspati Misra ($ 0.11) 45. Vatsyayana ($ 0.6) 46. Vindhyavasin ($1.5) 47. Visvanatha ($ 0.15) 7th century A.D. ca 11th century A.D. ca 11th century A.D. 5th century A.D. 950 A.D. 4th century A.D. not later than 4th century A.D. 17th century A.D. Naiyayika Nyaya-Vaisesika Ny aya-Vais es ika Buddhist Naiyayika Naiyayika Samkhya teacher Nyaya-Vaisesika BIBLIOGRAPHY Note: 1. The year of p u b l i c a t i o n mentioned i n the ent r i e s i s not ne c e s s a r i l y the year of f i r s t p u b l i c a t i o n . 2. Abbreviated items (excepting Nos 8 and 51 below) l i s t e d on pp ix-x, are not included. 1. Ackermann, Robert (1966): Nondeductive Inference. Routlege and Kegan Paul, London. Dover P u b l i c a t i o n s , New York. 2. Aklujkar, A. N. (1970a): The Philosophy of Bhartrhari's TrikandZ. Ph.D. thesis approved by Harvard U n i v e r s i t y . Unpublished. 3. (1970b): "Ancient Indian Semantics". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona. 4. (1971): " S t y l i s t i c s i n the Sanskrit T r a d i t i o n " . Included i n Kachru and Stahlke 1971. 5. Anscombe, E l i z a b e t h , and Peter Geach (1961): Three Philosophers. B a s i l Blackwell, Oxford. 6. (1964): Descartes: Philosophical Writings. Nelson, London. 7. Apte, V. S. (1963): The Students' Guide to Sanskrit Composition. M o t i l a l Banarsidass, D e l h i , Patna, and Varnasi. 8. Athalye, Y. V., and M. R. Bodas (eds) (1930): Tarka-samgraha of Annximbha^a (with the Author's Tarka-aZpika. and Govardhana's Nyaya-bodhint. Enlarged e d i t i o n . Bombay Sanskrit Series No. 55, Bombay. 9. Berg, Jan (1963): " D e f i n i t i o n e r av begreppet v y a p t i e n l i g t Gangesa" ("Definitions of the concept of vyapt i according to Gangesa"). Included i n Sju filosofiska studier, tillMgnade Anders Wedberg, mimeographed, F i l o s o f i s k a s t u d i e r utgivna av F i l o s o f i s k a I n s t i t u t i o n e n v i d Stockholms u n i v e r s i t e t , no. 9, Stockholm 1963, pp 4-8. See F o l l e s d a l 1968. 10. (1970): Review of Staal 1960a, 1960b, 1961, 1962a, and 1962b. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 35, 573-75. 237 11. Bhattacharya, B. P. (1962): A Study in Language and Meaning . Progressive Publishers, Calcutta. 12. Bhattacharya, D. C. (1958): History of Navya-nyaya in Mithila. Mithila Institute of Postgraduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, Darbhanga. 13. Bhattacharya, Sibjivan (1955): "Daniel H. H. Ingalls on Indian Logic". (Review of Ingalls 1951). Philosophy East and West, 5, 155-62. 14. (1961): "The Nyaya-Vaisesika Doctrine of Qualities". Philosophy East and West, 11, 143-51. 15. Bochenski, I. M. (1961): A History of Formal Logic. Edited and translated by Ivo Thomas. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana. 16. Brough, J. (1953): "Some Indian Theories of Meaning". Transactions of the Philological Society, London. 17. Burrow, T. (1936): "Indian Theories of the Nature of Meaning". Transactions of the Philological Society, London. 18. Carnap, Rudolf (1942): Introduction to Semantics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 19. (1956): Meaning and Necessity. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. 20. Carroll, Lewis (1895): "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles". Mind, ns 4, 278-80. 21. Chatterjee, S. C. (1950): The Nyaya Theory of Knowledge. Second edition. University of Calcutta, Calcutta. 22. and D. M. Datta (1950): An Introduction to Indian Phil-osophy. Fourth edition, revised and enlarged. University of Calcutta, Calcutta. 23. Chomsky, Naom (1957): Syntactic Structures. Mouton and Co., The Hague. 24. Church, Alonzo (1946): "A Formulation of the Logic of Sense and Denotation". Journal of Symbolic Logic, 11, 31. 25. (1951): "A Formulation of the Logic of Sense and Denota-tion". Included in Henle, Kallen, and Langer 1951:3-24. 238 26. Church, Alonzo (1956): Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 27. Cohen, Morris, and Earnest Nagel (1934): An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. 28. Copi, I. M. (1968): Introduction to Logic. The Macmillan Co., New York. Collier-Macmillan Ltd., London. 29. Datta, D. M. (1960): The Six Ways of Knowing. Second revised edition. University of Calcutta, Calcutta. 30. Dhruva, A. B. (1922): "Trividham Anumanam, or a Study in Nyaya-sutra 1.1.5". Proceedings and Transactions of the First Oriental Conference (1919), Vol II, 251-85. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona. 31. Edwards, Paul (ed) (1967): The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Vol II). The Macmillan Co., and The Free Press, New York. C o l l i e r -Macmillan Ltd., London. 32. Feigl, Herbert, and Wilfrid Sellars (eds) (1949): Readings in Philosophical Analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York. 33. Flew, A. G. N. (ed) (1953): Logic and Language. Second series. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 34. Follesdal, Dagfinn (1968): Review of Berg 1963. Journal of Symbolic Logic, SS, 605. 35. Frauwallner, Erich (1961): "Landmarks in the History of Indian Logic". Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde SUd-und Ostasiens, 5, 125-48. 36. Frege, Gottlob (1892): "On Sense and Reference" ("Uber Sinn und Bedeutung"). Translated by Max Black. Included i n Geach and Black 1960. My references are to Geach and Black. 37. Geach, Peter, and Max Black (eds, trs) (1960): Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 38. Goekoop, C. (1967): The Logic of Invariable Concomitance in the Tattva-cintamani. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht-Holland. 39. Goodman, Nelson (1965): Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Second edition. The Bobbs-Merrill Co. Inc., New York and Kansas City. 40. Hailperin, T. (1957): "A Theory of Restricted Quantification". Journal of Symbolic Logic, 22, 19-35, 113-29. 239 41. Hattori, Masaaki (1968): Dignaga on Perception. Harvard Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, Mass. 42. Hempel, Carl G. (1943): "A Purely Syntactic Definition of Confirmation". Journal of Symbolic Logic, 8, 122 -43 . 43. (1945): "Studies in the Logic of Confirmation". Mind ns 54, 1-26, 97-121. 44. (1965): Aspects of Scientific Explanation. The Free Press, New York. Collier-Macmillan Ltd., London. 45. Henle, Paul, H. M. Kallen, and S. K. Langer (eds) (1951): Structure, Method, and Meaning. The Liberal Arts Press, New York. 46. Hiri^nna, M. (1932): Outlines of Indian Philosophy. Allen and Unwin, London. 47. Ingalls, D. H. H. (1951): Materials for the Study of Navya-nyaya Logic. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. See Potter 1954c; S. Bhattacharya 1955; Staal 1960d. 48. Jackson, Howard 0. (1963): "Frege on Sense-Functions". Analysis, 23, 84-87. Included i n Klemke 1968:376-81. 49. Jayanta Bhatta^(ca 965 A. D.): Nyaya-maHjari (in two parts). Edited by Sri Surya Narayana Sukla. Kashi Sanskrit Series No. 106, 1934, Benares. 50. Jere, A. N. (ed) (1933): Kdrikdvali of Visvanatha Nydya-paftcdnana Bhatta (with_the commentaries, Sidxdhanta-rmdK.td.vall, Dinakari, and Rdmarudri). Third edition. Nirnaya Sagara Press, Bombay. 51. Jhalkikar, Bhimacharya (1928): Nydya-kosa. The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona. 52. Johnson, W. E.- (1964): Logic (Vol II). Dover Publications, New York. 53. Kachru, Braj B., and Herbert F. W. Stahlke (eds) (1971): Current Trends in Stylistics. Linguistic Research Inc., Edmonton. Publication delayed. 54. Kalish, Donald, and Richard Montague (1964): Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning. Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., New York. 55. Keith, A. B. (1921): Indian Logic and Atomism. Oxford University Press, London. Reprinted by Greenwood Press, Publishers, New York, 1968. 240 56. Kemp-Smith, Norman (tr) (1958): Descartes: Philosophical Writings. The Modern Library, New York. 57. Kenny, Anthony (1968): Descartes. Random House, New York. 58. Keynes, J. N. (1894): Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic. Third edition. Macmillan and Co., London and New York. 59. Kitagawa, Hidenori (1965): "On 'Upadhi'". Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Tokyo, 14, 436-30. 60. (1966): "On 'Upadhi'". Festschrift Kanakura, Heirakuji-shoten, Kyoto, Japan, 97-109. 61. Klemke, E. D. (ed) (1968): Essays on Frege. University of I l l i n o i s Press, Urbana (Chicago), and London. 62. Linsky, Leonard (ed) (1952): Semantics and the Philosophy of Language. The University of I l l i n o i s Press, Urbana. 63. Lukasiewicz, Jan (1957): Aristotle's Syllogistic. Second edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 64. Madhavananda, Swami (tr) (1954): Bhdsd-pariccheda with Siddhanta-muktavalZ by Visvanatha Nydya-paftcanana. Second edition. Advaita Asrama, Calcutta. 65. Mates, Benson (1953): Stoic Logic. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 66. (1965): Elementary Logic. Oxford University Press, New York. 67. Matilal, B. K. (1961): "The Doctrine of Karana in Grammar and Logic". Proceedings and Transactions of the All India Oriental Conference (1959), Vol II, pt I, 303-08. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona. 68. (1964): "The Intensional Character of Laksana and Samkara in Navya-nyaya". Indo-Iranian Journal (The Hague), 8, 85-95. 69. (1966): "Indian Theorists on the Nature of the Sentence (vdkya)". Foundations of Language, 2, 377-93. 70. (1968a): The Navya-nyaya Doctrine of Negation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 71. (1968b): "Gangesa on the Concept of Universal Property". Included in Rootselaar and Staal 1968:531-42. Also included in Philosophy East and West, 18, 151-61. My references are to Rootselaar and Staal. 241 72. (Senape) McDermott, A. C. (1969): An Eleventh Century Buddhist Logic of 'Exists'. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht-Holland. 73. Mohanty, J . N. (1971): Review of M a t i l a l 1968a. Journal of Indian Philosophy (Dordrecht-Holland), 1, 197-211. 74. Mookerjee, Satkari (1954): Introduction i n Madhavananda 1954. 75. Nagel, Ernest, P a t r i c k Suppes, and A l f r e d T a r s k i (eds) (1962): Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (Proceedings of the 1960 Int e r n a t i o n a l Congress). Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press, Stanford, C a l i f . 76. Nicod, Jean (1930): Foundations of Geometry and Induction ( t r P. P. Wiener). Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Co., London. 77. Pap, Arthur (1958): Semantics and Necessary Truth. Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, New Haven and London. 78. Potter, K. H. (1954a): "Are the Vaisesika 'Gunas' Q u a l i t i e s ? " Philosophy East and West, 4, 259-64. 79. (1954b): Review of In g a l l s 1951. Philosophy East and West, 4, 271-73. 80. (1957): The Padartha-tattva-nirupanam of Raghunatha Siromani (Harvard-Yenching I n s t i t u t e Studies Vol XVII). Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, Cambridge, Mass. 81. (1963): Presuppositions of India's Philosophies. Prentice H a l l Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . 82. (1968): "Is Nyaya Intensional or Extensional?" Journal of American Oriental Society, 88, 711-17. 83. (1970): The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies (Vol I, Bibliography). M o t i l a l Banarsidass, D e l h i . 84. Quine, W. V. 0. (1951): Mathematical Logic. Revised e d i t i o n . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, Cambridge, Mass. 85. (1959): Methods of Logic. Revised e d i t i o n . Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. 86. (1960): Word and Object. The M. I. T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. 242 87. Quine, W. V. 0. (1961): From a Logical Point of View. Revised second edition. Harper and Row, New York. 88. (1963): Set Theory and Its Logic. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 89. (1970): Philosophy of Logic. Prentice Hall, Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . 90. Radhakrishnan, S. (1926): Indian Philosophy (Vol I ) . Allen and Unwin, London. 91. (1927): Indian Philosophy (Vol II). Allen and Unwin, London. 92. Raja, K. (1963): Indian Theories of Meaning. Adyar Library and Research Institute, Madras. 93. Randle, H. N. (1930): Indian Logic in the Early Schools. Oxford University Press, Bombay. 94. Rootselaar, B. Van, and J . F. Staal (eds) (1968): Logic, Method-ology, and Philosophy of Science III. Proceedings of the Third International Congress for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Amsterdam 1967, 531-542. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam. 95. Ross, W. D. (1957): Aristotle's Prior and Posterior Analytics. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 96. Ryle, Gilbert (1938): "Categories". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, London, 38, 189-206. Included i n Flew 1953:65-81. My references are to Flew. 97. Sastri, D. N. (1964): The Critique of Indian Realism. Agra University, Agra. 98. Sastri, Gauririatha (1959): The Philosophy of Word and Meaning. (Calcutta Sanskrit College Research Series No. V). Sanskrit College, Calcutta. 99. Schayer, Stanislaw (1933a): "Uber die Methode der Nyaya-Forschung". Included in Festschrift Moris Wintemitz, Otto Harrassowitz, Leipzig. 100. (1933b): "Studien zur indishen Logik-I". Bull. int. de I'Ac. Pol. des Sciences et des Lettres, Cl. de philol., CI. d' hist et de philos., annee 1932 (ersch. 1933), 98-102. 243 101. S c h e f f l e r , I s r a e l (1963): Tlie Anatomy of Inquiry. A l f r e d A. Knopf, New York. 102. Schmithausen, Lambert (1970): "Zur Lehre von der v o r s t e l l u n g s f r e i n Wahrnehmung b e i Prasastapada". Wiener Zeitschrift fur die kunde SUdasiens, 14, 125-29. 103. Sen, Saileswar (1924): A Study on Mathuranatha's Tattva-cintamani-rahasya. Wageningen. 104. Sharma, Dhirendra (1969): The Differentiation Theory of Meaning in Indian Logic. Mouton and Co., The Hague. 105. Skyrms, Brian (1966): Choice and Chance. Dickenson Publishing Co., Belmont, C a l i f . 106. Smart, J . J . C. (1953): "A Note on Categories". British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 4, 227-28. 107. S t a a l , J . F. (1960a): "Correlations between Language and Logic i n Indian Thought". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 12, 109-22. See Berg 1970. 108. (1960b): "Formal Structures i n Indian Logic". Synthese, 12, 279-86. See Berg 1970. 109. (1960c): "Means of Formalisation i n Indian and Western Logic". Proceedings of the Xllth International Congress of Philosophy (1958), Venice, V ol X, 221-27. See Berg 1970. 110. (1960d): Review of In g a l l s 1951. Indo-Iranian Journal (Leiden), 4, 70-71. 111. (1961): "The Theory of D e f i n i t i o n i n Indian Logic". Journal of American Oriental Society, 33, 122-26. See Berg 1970. 112. (1962a): "Negation and the Law of Contradiction i n Indian Thought". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 25, 52-71. See Berg 1970. 113. (1962b): "Contraposition i n Indian Logic". Included i n Nagel, Suppes, and T a r s k i 1962:634-49. 114. (1967): Word Order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht-Holland. 244 115. Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1962a): Buddhist Logic (Vol I ) . Dover Publications, New York. 116. (1962b): Buddhist Logic (Vol II). Dover Publications, New York. 117. Stebbing, L. S. (1948): A Modem Introduction to Logic. Sixth edition. Methuen and Co., London. 118. Suali, L. (1913): Introduzione alio Studio delta Filosofia Indiana. Pavia. 119. Tarski, Alfred (1944): "The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341-76. Included in Feigl and Sellars 1949:52-84, and in Linsky 1952:13-47. My references are to Feigl and Sellars. 120. (1946): Introduction to Logic. Revised second edition. Oxford University Press, New York. 121. Thompson, Manely (1967): "Categories". Included in Edwards 1967:46-55. 122. Uno, Atsushi (1962): "The Concept of vyapti in the Nyaya School". Acta Asiatica, 3, 16-29. 123. Vidyabhusana, Satis Chandra (1921): A History of Indian Logic. Calcutta University, Calcutta. 124. Warrington, John (ed, tr) (1964): Aristotle: Prior and Posterior Analytics. Everyman's Library, London and New York. 125. Watkins, J. W. N. (1957): "Between Analytic and Empirical". Philosophy, 32, 112-31. 126. (1958): "A Rejoinder to Professor Hempel's Reply". Philosophy, 33, 349-55. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0103907/manifest

Comment

Related Items