2023-03-29 18:09:44 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
THE SYSTEM OF FIGURES
found in several substrata
uncertain as to substrata
a quality shared by several per-
sons
(C) The relationship between properties of a thing is distorted.
an essential property represented as another apahnuti (II)
paradoxical qualities
leśa (II)
contradictory qualities
deficiency represented as potency
more than the usual number of epithets
quality predominates unexpectedly over
another
višeșa (II)
samsaya (II)
tulyayogita
quality fuses with another
quality fails to fuse, despite similarity
coalescence of qualities leads to confusion
of two things
virodha
viseşokti (I)
parikara
pihita
tadguṇa
atadguna
milita
59
At this point the categories of definition return us to the realm of
simile; but the emphasis remains on the qualities, and that is what keeps
milita itself from "fusing" with samásokti or utprekşā.
III. FIGURES based on relationships of causality (hetu) or character
(lakṣaṇa). The remaining arthālamkāras involve relationships other than
that of similitude between two or more things (ideas), primarily con-
comitance. The poetical vocabulary shows its dependence on the forms
of logic most clearly here. Indian logic is based on the notion of necessary
concomitance (vyāpti), which is shown to be without exception as
demonstrated by syllogism. Such concomitance between two things is
ordinarily in one direction only (in class logic, one term includes the other);
the relationship may be that of cause and effect. Inference based on
vyāpti will determine either the cause from the effect or vice versa.143
The concomitance, however, may be only occasional or conventional
and not strictly demonstrable, as when we say that the streams are over-
flowing because of rain in the hills; other causes can also be imagined.
Cause and effect remains the foundation of the inferential relationship,
and this aspect is always present in the play of the figure on the strictly
logical form. Even when the figure does not explicitly formulate an
inference, the distortion of the relation of concomitance is generally
14 Nyaya sutra 1.1.5; deşavat, pūrvavat; reasonings of the form sämänyato drsta
appear poetically as arthāntaranyāsa, Cf. Keith, Indian Logic pp. 88-9.
found in several substrata
uncertain as to substrata
a quality shared by several per-
sons
(C) The relationship between properties of a thing is distorted.
an essential property represented as another apahnuti (II)
paradoxical qualities
leśa (II)
contradictory qualities
deficiency represented as potency
more than the usual number of epithets
quality predominates unexpectedly over
another
višeșa (II)
samsaya (II)
tulyayogita
quality fuses with another
quality fails to fuse, despite similarity
coalescence of qualities leads to confusion
of two things
virodha
viseşokti (I)
parikara
pihita
tadguṇa
atadguna
milita
59
At this point the categories of definition return us to the realm of
simile; but the emphasis remains on the qualities, and that is what keeps
milita itself from "fusing" with samásokti or utprekşā.
III. FIGURES based on relationships of causality (hetu) or character
(lakṣaṇa). The remaining arthālamkāras involve relationships other than
that of similitude between two or more things (ideas), primarily con-
comitance. The poetical vocabulary shows its dependence on the forms
of logic most clearly here. Indian logic is based on the notion of necessary
concomitance (vyāpti), which is shown to be without exception as
demonstrated by syllogism. Such concomitance between two things is
ordinarily in one direction only (in class logic, one term includes the other);
the relationship may be that of cause and effect. Inference based on
vyāpti will determine either the cause from the effect or vice versa.143
The concomitance, however, may be only occasional or conventional
and not strictly demonstrable, as when we say that the streams are over-
flowing because of rain in the hills; other causes can also be imagined.
Cause and effect remains the foundation of the inferential relationship,
and this aspect is always present in the play of the figure on the strictly
logical form. Even when the figure does not explicitly formulate an
inference, the distortion of the relation of concomitance is generally
14 Nyaya sutra 1.1.5; deşavat, pūrvavat; reasonings of the form sämänyato drsta
appear poetically as arthāntaranyāsa, Cf. Keith, Indian Logic pp. 88-9.