"NYĀYA-SŪTRA" 5.1.2: ANOMALIES IN THE "BHĀṢYA"

• Published in: Journal of Indian philosophy Vol. 31; no. 1/3; pp. 47 - 60
• Main Author: GILLON, BRENDAN S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Kluwer Academic Publishers 01.06.2003; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adverbs; Ancient languages; Canonical forms; Contradictory statements; Eastern philosophy; Epistemology; History of philosophy; India; Logic; Motion; Noun phrases; Philosophical thought; Philosophy; Prepositions; Reason; Reasoning; Sanskrit; Semantics; Space based observatories; Suffixes; Translation; Translations; Kolkata India
• ISSN: 0022-1791; 1573-0395
• DOI: 10.1023/A:1024658503572

(See, for example, the conclusion (nigamana) of the first arguments second rejoinder, cited below R1.2.) Hence, in negated clauses, iva and -vat are correctly translated as unlike. [...]the correct translation of the negated Sanskrit sentence is the self, unlike a clod, is not mobile.Returning to the Sanskrit adverb tath, we see that it has similar semantic properties to the preposition iva and the suffix -vat. First PairThe first argument rejoinder pair (A1; R1.1) is laid out below.FIRST ARGUMENT AND ITS FIRST REJOINDER: (unemended version)ARGUMENT 1 REJOINDER 1.1pratij kriy-vn tm ni-kriya tm proposition the self is mobile the self is immobilehetu dravyasya kriy-hetu-gua-yogt vibhuna dravyasya ni-kriyatvt ground because a substance has a quality,causing motion udharaa dravyam loa kriy-hetu-guayukta kriy-vn corroboration a substance, a clod, having a quality causing motion, is mobilebecause a ubiquitous substance is immobile vibhu ca kam ni-kriyam caspace is both ubiquitous and immobileupanaya tath ca tm tath ca tm application and likewise, the self and likewise, the selfnigamana tasmt kriy-vn tasmt ni-kriya conclusion therefore, it is mobile therefore, it is immobileFirst, we note two minor ways in which these arguments differ from the canonical ones given in NBh 1.1.39. In the application statement(upanaya), the ground (hetu) is not mentioned and in the conclusion(nigamana) neither is the ground nor the subject (paka) mentioned. [...]while the canonical arguments application statement (upanaya) has the form tath ca p1 H1 (and likewise, p is H), the rejoinder has the form tath ca p1 (and likewise, p); and while the canonical52 BRENDAN S. GILLONarguments conclusion (nigamana) has the form tasmt H-tvt S1 p1 (therefore, because of H-ness, p is S), the rejoinder has the form tasmt S1 (therefore, S). The conclusion of R1.2 contains the superfluous use of a corroborating instance loa-vat (like a clod). Besides the occurrence of superfluous elements, three of the rejoinders and one of the arguments invert the order of mention of the ground property and the property to be established (sdhya-dharma) in their corroboration statements(udharaa).None of the foregoing deviations from the canonical form bear on the soundness either of the arguments or of their rejoinders.