MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode3_Part13_RadioPlay.mp4

Not an editorially verified transcript. This text was generated automatically from the preserved recording and may contain recognition, language-detection, spelling, segmentation or name errors. Consult the source recording for authoritative content.

Collection: Part 10 · VIDEHA MITHILA MAITHILI DISCUSSION CRITICISM SERIES PART 10
Status: asr-draft
Human verified: No
Editorial review: not-reviewed
ASR model: small
Detected language: en (0.997866)
Duration: 23:29
Source: Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

0:02–0:12An affirmative negative reason is a reason statement that occurs both in the subject and in similar instances, but not in counter instances.
0:12–0:24A purely affirmative reason is a reason statement that occurs both in the subject and in similar instances and for which no counter instance serving as a locus of the absence of the probandom is possible.
0:24–0:29Alternatively, a purely affirmative reason is an expression containing the ablative case
0:29–0:33which produces cognition of a reason endowed with affirmative provision, does not state
0:33–0:38the probandom, and produces a verbal cognition assisting the subsumptive reflection on the
0:38–0:43inferential mark, the cause of inferential cognition.
0:43–0:47This definition also applies to the purely negative reason if, possessing affirmative
0:47–0:52provision is replaced by, devoid of affirmative provision.
0:52–0:56In the Nyaya statement one should say merely because of smoke, not because of possessing
0:56–0:58smoke.
0:58–1:02Use of the possessive suffix mad up is pointless.
1:02–1:07The use of external perceptibility devoid of universalhood is not incoherent.
1:07–1:0916.
1:09–1:13Some scholars object that in the inference, sound is impermanent because it is externally
1:13–1:17perceptible while devoid of universalhood, but qualifier, possessing universalhood,
1:17–1:21cannot be related to reason status expressed by the ablative case, because universalhood
1:21–1:28is constrained by the genitive case. This objection is not sound. Within the property,
1:28–1:32being externally perceptible, a qualifier, possessing universalhood, can be connected
1:32–1:36through collocation expressed by the locative case, hence the semantically fit relation
1:36–1:41is established with reason status expressed by the ablative case.
1:41–1:47Definition of the example. 17. After the reason statement, the expectancy
1:47–1:53arises, how is this reason a cause of inference? It is therefore necessary to state first the
1:53–1:59perversion and then subject propertyhood. Since perversion precedes subject propertyhood,
1:59–2:02the example statement first expresses the perversion of the reason.
2:03–2:08The example is an expression that produces cognition of perversion as a relation, a specific
2:08–2:13perversion residing in the reason is pervaded, cognition of which then becomes a cause of
2:13–2:17the sentence cognition that produces subsumptive reflection on the inferential mark.
2:19–2:23The general definition of an affirmative negative example includes both cognition of the
2:23–2:28perversion relation of the probandom by the reason and cognition of the perversion relation
2:28–2:34of the absence of the probandom by the absence of the reason. From this, separate definitions of
2:34–2:40affirmative and negative examples are obtained. A sentence merely expressing an instance does
2:40–2:45not become an example simply because it is a member of nyaya, since the use of an instance
2:45–2:49is only a customary practice, not a universal rule.
2:49–2:54The probation statement, whatever possesses smoke possesses fire, retains examplehood
2:54–2:57even though no instance is named.
2:57–3:01An alternative definition of the example
3:01–3:06The particular expression denoting the specified perversion and the cognition of perversion
3:06–3:10produced by a sentence cannot alone be called the example, because such a definition
3:10–3:17would overextend to the application statement as well. Some scholars say that the example
3:17–3:23is a sentence that produces expectancy for the application. This is the general definition
3:23–3:28of an example. When a specific reference to affirmative or negative provision is added,
3:28–3:33the special definitions of affirmative and negative examples are obtained.
3:33–3:39Repetition of the relative pronoun. The teachers hold that in the sentence, whatever
3:39–3:44possesses smoke possesses fire, repetition of the relative pronoun whatever is made to prevent
3:44–3:51deviation of the reason from the probandom. But where the provision of reason by probandom is
3:51–3:57known through co-location, repetition of the relative pronoun is unnecessary. In purely affirmative
3:57–4:02inference, even without repetition, the problem of deviation of the reason from the probandom
4:02–4:09does not arise, this is our view. Repetition occurs only with the relative pronoun, not
4:09–4:14with the correlative pronoun. A correlative pronoun can apprehend the meanings expressed
4:14–4:19by relative pronouns bearing different case endings, thus a word uttered once expresses
4:19–4:24the meaning retained in the mind without violating linguistic rules.
4:24–4:28Defective examples are of five kinds on account of the following divisions, devoid
4:28–4:32of the probandum, devoid of the reason.
4:32–4:37Devoid of both probandum and reason, devoid of a locus, possessing an unstated affirmative
4:37–4:42provision, presenting affirmative provision in reverse, possessing an unstated negative
4:42–4:47provision, and presenting negative provision in reverse.
4:47–4:49Definition of the application.
4:49–4:5020.
4:50–4:55After the example statement has been uttered, the following expectancy arises, the provision
4:55–5:01has been understood, but is the pervaded reason property present in the subject or not?
5:01–5:06The application is then stated, by which the subject propertyhood of the reason pervaded
5:06–5:09by the probandom is displayed.
5:09–5:13In general, the application is that member of Nyaya which produces the cognition that
5:13–5:18generates the third substantive reflection on the inferential mark, the cause of inferential
5:18–5:20cognition.
5:20–5:23The application has two special definitions.
5:23–5:29First, that member of Nyaya which produces cognition of the subject qualified by a reason
5:29–5:31pervaded by the probandom.
5:31–5:36Second, that member of Nyaya which produces cognition of the subject endowed with the
5:36–5:42counter-positive of an absence of the reason that pervades the absence of the probandom.
5:42–5:46For example, in affirmative inference, the expression so too this mountain produces
5:46–5:52the third subsumptive reflection, this mountain possesses smoke pervaded by fire.
5:52–5:57In purely negative inference, the expression so-to-this-earth produces the cognition this
5:57–6:01earth possesses odor, which is the counter positive of absence of odor that pervades
6:01–6:06the absence of difference from the other eight substances.
6:06–6:10Certain saccas say that the use of nyaya ends with the three members thesis, reason,
6:10–6:15an example, and that application and conclusion are unnecessary.
6:15–6:17This view is not sound.
6:17–6:22The third subsumptive reflection, combining perversion and subject propertyhood, is produced
6:22–6:26by no other member, but only by the application.
6:26–6:30Although the MSACA does not accept the third subsumptive reflection as the cause of inferential
6:30–6:35cognition, other scholars do accept it as such, therefore the application cannot
6:35–6:37be omitted.
6:37–6:40The application is necessary.
6:40–6:4121.
6:41–6:45It should not be said that the subject propertyhood of the reason can be understood from
6:45–6:51the reason statement itself. The reason statement fulfills the expectancy for the nature of
6:51–6:55the reason as the cause of the probandom, it is not uttered to convey the presence of
6:55–6:58the reason in the subject.
6:58–7:01Nor should it be said that subject propertyhood is implicitly known from the opponent's
7:01–7:05reason statement. Until the meaning of the reason statement is settled, it cannot
7:05–7:11imply subject propertyhood. Otherwise pervasion, the reason and subject propertyhood would
7:11–7:16all be implied by the thesis alone, and the other members of Naya would become pointless.
7:16–7:20Nor is it sound to say that the opponent will understand pervasion and subject propertyhood
7:20–7:25on his own. Neither proponent nor opponent is omniscient, it is not universally possible
7:25–7:30to understand everything unaided. The opponent must himself perform his proper task, that
7:30–7:34is, employ the application. Otherwise a mission of the other members too would become
7:34–7:36admissible.
7:36–7:44conclusion statement. After the application, the conclusion is stated. The conclusion is the
7:44–7:50sentence that produces cognition of the probandom on the basis of the substantive reflection generated
7:50–7:56by cognition of perversion and subject propertyhood. The question, what is the purpose of the
7:56–8:02conclusion, is not sound. The first four members yield cognition of perversion and subject
8:02–8:07propertyhood, but unless the absence of a defeating reason and the absence of an equally
8:07–8:11strong counter reason are ascertained, those four members do not culminate in inferential
8:11–8:17cognition. The conclusion completes the inference by conveying these absences.
8:17–8:21Objection, there is no expectancy for the conclusion.
8:21–8:2723, an objection may be raised, once pervasion and subject propertyhood have been expressed,
8:27–8:32the reason is complete, and no expectancy for another member remains. Any doubt concerning
8:32–8:36the absence of the probandom should be removed by those very members, otherwise the conclusion
8:36–8:422 cannot remove that doubt, since the conclusion is not a special sensory perception.
8:42–8:46Nor should it be said that the conclusion removes doubt by expressing the subject as
8:46–8:49endowed with an established probandom.
8:49–8:54If the conclusion states only the nature of the probandom and not its established status,
8:54–8:59then the ablative meaning because of such a reason cannot be related to the probandom.
8:59–9:04The answer is that even after perversion and subject propertyhood are known, cognition
9:04–9:08of the probandom does not arise because of the possibility of a defeating reason and
9:08–9:11of an equally strong counter reason.
9:11–9:15Only after the absence of a defeater and of a counter reason is known as the intended
9:15–9:21inferential cognition obtained, the conclusion expresses this result fully.
9:21–9:26Knowledge of the absence of defeaters and the like is necessary.
9:26–9:31An objection may be raised, the actual absence of a defeating reason and an equally strong
9:31–9:36counter reason may assist inferential cognition, but not cognition of their absence, because
9:36–9:43no means for such cognition is available and its semantic relation is also unestablished.
9:43–9:45This objection is not sound.
9:45–9:48The rule of pavasion is, that which does not arise in the presence of cognition
9:48–9:51of something arises from cognition of that thing's absence.
9:51–9:55Therefore cognition of the absence of a defeating reason and of the absence of an equally
9:55–9:58strong counter-reason is necessary.
9:58–10:03It should not be said that the ablative meaning of therefore is unrelated to the probandom
10:03–10:05as established.
10:05–10:10Through the relation expressed by the ablative, the probandom's freedom from further expectancy,
10:10–10:15that is, its established status, is cognized, this cognition arises only after the ablative
10:15–10:17relation is established.
10:17–10:24Consequently, the establishment of the probandom is known precisely from the conclusion.
10:24–10:26refers to the reason.
10:26–10:2725.
10:27–10:32Some scholars say that in therefore, so, the correlative pronoun so has the reason side
10:32–10:35in view, not the pro-bandom side.
10:35–10:39Therefore draws the conclusion after considering all forms of the reasoned provision, subject
10:39–10:44propertyhood, absence of a defeater, and so forth.
10:44–10:47This view, however, is not sound.
10:47–10:53It is unclear whether so refers to the previously stated reason's nature, qualifier, or
10:53–10:58similarity. The application begins with so to this, whereas the conclusion begins with
10:58–11:03therefore, so, if the same reason side were intended in both places, the sentence meaning
11:03–11:08would become disconnected. The alternative that the subject of the reason is the subject
11:08–11:13in general is also on sound, because relating the subject in doubt with the reason merely
11:13–11:19to a general subject would be incoherent. The alternative of similarity is likewise
11:19–11:25incoherent. In inferences of identity and in purely affirmative inferences, similarity
11:25–11:29among subjects cannot be apprehended in the conclusion.
11:29–11:35Objection, the relation between, therefore, and, so, would be incoherent.
11:35–11:4126, an objection may be raised, when, so, refers to the various intended features of the reason,
11:41–11:45therefore, cannot be related to a general qualifier of the pro-bandom. If in the
11:45–11:50The opponent's statement, therefore, so, therefore, is also held to connect with the contextually
11:50–11:55supplied qualifier of the probandom over extension results.
11:55–12:00The answer is that so refers to the cognized form of the previously stated reason.
12:00–12:05Because therefore refers back through the correlative so, it requires no separate relation
12:05–12:08beyond the knownness of the reason.
12:08–12:12On the basis of cognition of the qualified reason, therefore is connected with the
12:12–12:15qualified probandom.
12:15–12:20In the conclusion, therefore sound is impermanent, the established status of the probandum impermanence
12:20–12:23is specifically cognized in sound.
12:23–12:28Thus there is no need to relate the meaning of therefore again to the probandum impermanence,
12:28–12:32the matter stated as probandum in the thesis is reaffirmed in the conclusion by establishing
12:32–12:35its relation to the reason.
12:35–12:39Doubt, purpose, and the like are not members.
12:39–12:4027.
12:40–12:44Doubt, purpose, and the like are not members of nyaya.
12:44–12:50possess none of the characteristics of a member of Nyaya, their use in Nyaya is merely as auxiliary
12:50–12:56material, not as an enlargement of the number of members. Questions such as, does it possess fire,
12:56–13:01or how does smoke indicate fire, are not universally necessary, they are useful only in
13:01–13:07special contexts. With this, the section on the members of Nyaya in the inference division
13:07–13:11of Tatvassant Mayans.
13:11–13:14Phalacious reasons
13:14–13:19Phalacious reasons assist in determining truth and attaining victory, therefore they are explained
13:19–13:21here.
13:21–13:24General definition of a phalacious reason
13:24–13:292. The cognition of that factor which is the counter positive of being the object
13:29–13:33of valid cognition, that is, which consists in the absence of a cause of inferential
13:33–13:37cognition, obstructs inference, alternatively, the status of a reason whose cognition
13:37–13:42abstracts inference is fallacious reasonhood. For example, in the faulty inference, fire
13:42–13:47is not hot because it is a substance, substancehood is a fallacious reason, because the absence
13:47–13:51of heat, the object opposed to the veridical cognition, fire is hot, is not pervaded by
13:51–13:57substancehood. An alternative definition, the status of a reason such that, when it
13:57–14:01is known, cognition of the reason becomes an obstruction to inference is fallacious
14:01–14:06reasonhood. In the faulty inference, the mountain possesses smoke because it
14:06–14:11possesses fire, the cognition concerning the reason fire is pervaded by smoke obstructs
14:11–14:15inference, hence the reason fire is fallacious.
14:15–14:20According to the ancient scholars, the status of a reason whose cognition obstructs inferential
14:20–14:23cognition is fallacious reasonhood.
14:23–14:26In the faulty inference, the fireless mountain possesses smoke, when the absence
14:26–14:32of fire on the mountain is known, the reason smoke obstructs inference of fire.
14:32–14:37These definitions describe fallacies of reasons in general.
14:37–14:41Fallacious reasons as grounds of defeat will be discussed later.
14:41–14:46The general definitions include the fallacious reasons.
14:46–14:51In some contexts an uncommon reason and an equally strong counter reason also become
14:51–14:57fallacious reasons, cognition of them obstructs inferential cognition.
14:57–15:01It is not sound to deny that a defeated reason and an equally strong counter reason
15:01–15:07are fallacious on the claim that they obstruct only perceptual and verbal cognition. The foregoing
15:07–15:13definitions include reasons whose cognition obstructs cognitions of those kinds.
15:13–15:20An alternative view and the division of fallacious reasons. For, according to an alternative
15:20–15:24view, in perception, and other cognitions a defeated reason and an equally strong
15:24–15:29counter reason do not prevent the production of cognition, but merely render the produced
15:29–15:34cognition invalid. In inference, however, these two defects of a reason prevent the
15:34–15:38very production of cognition.
15:38–15:43Fallacious reasons are of five kinds, one, deviating or inconclusive, two, contradictory,
15:43–15:49three, counterbalanced by an equally strong reason, four, unestablished, and, five,
15:49–15:55defeated. The five corresponding defects are deviation, contradiction, counterbalance,
15:55–15:58non-establishment, and defeat.
15:58–16:03With this, the general account of fallacious reasons ends.
16:03–16:06The deviating or inconclusive reason.
16:06–16:075.
16:07–16:14The deviating or inconclusive reason is of three kinds, common, uncommon, and non-exclusive.
16:14–16:18The definition that which establishes both the probandom and its absences deviating
16:18–16:23does not equally include all three kinds, because one and the same reason cannot establish
16:23–16:27both the probandom and its absence, nor can it make both doubtful.
16:28–16:33Nor is occurrence in both similar and counter instances, or absence from both, the general
16:33–16:38definition of deviation, because these properties are not sequential but occur in separate divisions.
16:39–16:42A common reason occurs in both similar and counter instances,
16:42–16:47an uncommon reason occurs in neither, and a non-exclusive reason is invariably connected
16:47–16:50with both the probandom and its absence and produces doubt.
16:50–16:57Gangesa rejects the view that a deviating reason establishes both the probandum and its absence.
16:57–17:03One and the same reason cannot establish both, nor can it render both indeterminate.
17:03–17:07A currents in both similar and counter instances, exclusion from both,
17:07–17:12and invariable connection with both probandum and its absence are found respectively only in
17:12–17:19common, uncommon, and non-exclusive reasons. The ancient scholar's definition of deviation.
17:19–17:26The proposal may be made that a deviating reason is an intended reason whose cognition
17:26–17:31of subject propertyhood, becoming the object of cognition, causes recollection of two mutually
17:31–17:37opposed alternatives that produces doubt concerning the pro-bandom.
17:37–17:41But the doubtful statement, is sound impermanent or not, is itself neither the object of
17:41–17:45cognition of subject propertyhood nor the cause of recollecting two opposed alternatives.
17:45–17:50Common, uncommon, and non-exclusive reasons produced out respectively because of occurrence
17:50–17:54in both similar and counter instances, absence from both, and invariable connection with
17:54–17:57both pro-bandom and absence of pro-bandom.
17:57–18:01The non-exclusive reason in the purely affirmative inference, all things are knowable because
18:01–18:05they are nameable, and the uncommon reason in, this is a jar because it is this object,
18:05–18:07are sometimes faultless.
18:07–18:11A person's failure to understand such a faultless reason is a defect of that person's
18:11–18:14ignorance, not of the reason.
18:14–18:18even faultless uses of common reasons and equally strong counter reasons would have to be treated
18:18–18:22as fallacious owing to ignorance.
18:22–18:23Refutation of under extension
18:23–18:297. An objection may be raised. The foregoing definition of deviation does not include a
18:29–18:34common reason. In the inferences, this object is identical with this object because
18:34–18:38it is knowable, and sound is impermanent because it is either sound or something
18:38–18:42else, the common reason is not present in the subject as endowed with the probandom
18:42–18:45and therefore appears contradictory.
18:45–18:47This objection is not sound.
18:47–18:51Even if the common reason is not cognized as a property in the subject, cognition of the
18:51–18:55universality of the individual reason and the demonstration of that universality can obstruct
18:55–18:58both inference for oneself and inference for another.
18:58–19:02To establish the defect of a common reason, both the presence of the reason in the
19:02–19:05subject as subject propertyhood and commonness must be demonstrated, the commonness thus
19:05–19:09demonstrated constitutes the defect of the reason.
19:09–19:13The ancient scholars reject this objection of under extension, saying that common reasons
19:13–19:18such as no ability or being sound or something else are not situated in the subject as endowed
19:18–19:23with the probandom and therefore appear contradictory, nevertheless, the generality of the individual
19:23–19:26reason and its demonstration obstruct inference.
19:26–19:29The commoness of a common reason consists in the occurrence of the reason in both
19:29–19:34similar and counter instances, this is its defect.
19:34–19:38of the argument for an alternative definition.
19:38–19:438. The foregoing refutation also rejects the view that a reason present in the subject
19:43–19:49and undifferentiated from a deviation relation opposed to inference is deviating.
19:49–19:54Occurrence in both similar and counter instances, exclusion from both, and non-exclusiveness
19:54–19:59are respectively the distinct forms of deviation belonging to common, uncommon, and non-exclusive
19:59–20:04these divisions will therefore be explained without mutual intermixture of classes.
20:04–20:16A contradictory reason too can in this broad sense be called deviating, but the special conditions of the common, uncommon, and non-exclusive divisions will be separately explained below.
20:16–20:22Occurrence in both similar and counter-instances, exclusion from both, and non-exclusiveness,
20:22–20:27these three relations of deviation opposed to inference occur separately in common, uncommon,
20:27–20:30and non-exclusive reasons respectively.
20:30–20:34A contradictory reason too may sometimes be called deviating in this broad sense, but
20:34–20:40the special characteristics of common, uncommon, and non-exclusive reasons are not mutually
20:40–20:41intermixed.
20:41–20:47The extraneous conditions distinguishing these three will be explained below.
20:47–20:51Reason for rejecting the alternative definition.
20:51–20:539.
20:53–20:58Whether cognition is present or absent, knowledge of each specific property, such as commonness,
20:58–21:03uncommonness, and non-exclusiveness is necessary for recognizing the defect of the foregoing
21:03–21:05forms of deviation.
21:05–21:09Therefore the qualifier present in the subject is pointless in the definition of
21:09–21:12a deviating reason.
21:12–21:17For the same reason, the following definitions are also rejected, a fallacious reason not
21:17–21:22pervaded by the probandom, when it is pervaded by the absence of the probandom, or a reason
21:22–21:27occurring only in a subject distinct from similar instances endowed with the probandom.
21:27–21:32In the first definition, not pervaded by the probandom is an unnecessary qualifier,
21:32–21:37in the second, fallacious reasonhood is not already known.
21:37–21:41These definitions include the contradictory reason along with the common reason, as
21:41–21:46In other words, an ether is impermanent because it is the substratum of sound.
21:46–21:50Refutation of another definition.
21:50–21:5110.
21:51–21:55Neither excluded from all similar and all counter instances, nor occurring in both similar
21:55–22:01and counter instances, can be a general characteristic of a deviating reason.
22:01–22:05These formulations contain unnecessary qualifiers and fail to include the non-exclusive
22:05–22:08reason.
22:08–22:11When an object distinct from the subject and endowed with the probandom is treated
22:11–22:15as a similar instance, this definition excludes a non-exclusive inference such as, all knowable
22:15–22:21things are impermanent, because here no separate similar or counter instance is established.
22:21–22:24And when the subject itself is treated as a similar instance, an uncommon reason is
22:24–22:29improperly included in the definition.
22:29–22:30Refutation of yet another definition
22:30–22:3311.
22:33–22:38Nor is either of the following a general characteristic of deviation, a reason occurring only
22:38–22:43encounter instances distinct from the subject and not in similar instances, or a reason
22:43–22:48occurring only in similar instances distinct from the subject and not in counter instances.
22:48–22:54The first formulation does not include a non-exclusive reason and overextends to a faultless common
22:54–22:59reason, the second becomes intermixed with contradictory and uncommon reasons.
22:59–23:04The definition present in the subject, distinct from a contradictory reason, and devoid
23:04–23:10of a relation assisting inference likewise contains pointless qualifiers. The successive
23:10–23:14refutation of these definitions establishes that no single recurrent definition covering
23:14–23:22all deviating reasons is possible. Only their separate divisions constitute the actual defects.
23:22–23:25With this, the prima facie discussion of deviation ends.

Plain text

An affirmative negative reason is a reason statement that occurs both in the subject and in similar instances, but not in counter instances. A purely affirmative reason is a reason statement that occurs both in the subject and in similar instances and for which no counter instance serving as a locus of the absence of the probandom is possible. Alternatively, a purely affirmative reason is an expression containing the ablative case which produces cognition of a reason endowed with affirmative provision, does not state the probandom, and produces a verbal cognition assisting the subsumptive reflection on the inferential mark, the cause of inferential cognition. This definition also applies to the purely negative reason if, possessing affirmative provision is replaced by, devoid of affirmative provision. In the Nyaya statement one should say merely because of smoke, not because of possessing smoke. Use of the possessive suffix mad up is pointless. The use of external perceptibility devoid of universalhood is not incoherent. 16. Some scholars object that in the inference, sound is impermanent because it is externally perceptible while devoid of universalhood, but qualifier, possessing universalhood, cannot be related to reason status expressed by the ablative case, because universalhood is constrained by the genitive case. This objection is not sound. Within the property, being externally perceptible, a qualifier, possessing universalhood, can be connected through collocation expressed by the locative case, hence the semantically fit relation is established with reason status expressed by the ablative case. Definition of the example. 17. After the reason statement, the expectancy arises, how is this reason a cause of inference? It is therefore necessary to state first the perversion and then subject propertyhood. Since perversion precedes subject propertyhood, the example statement first expresses the perversion of the reason. The example is an expression that produces cognition of perversion as a relation, a specific perversion residing in the reason is pervaded, cognition of which then becomes a cause of the sentence cognition that produces subsumptive reflection on the inferential mark. The general definition of an affirmative negative example includes both cognition of the perversion relation of the probandom by the reason and cognition of the perversion relation of the absence of the probandom by the absence of the reason. From this, separate definitions of affirmative and negative examples are obtained. A sentence merely expressing an instance does not become an example simply because it is a member of nyaya, since the use of an instance is only a customary practice, not a universal rule. The probation statement, whatever possesses smoke possesses fire, retains examplehood even though no instance is named. An alternative definition of the example The particular expression denoting the specified perversion and the cognition of perversion produced by a sentence cannot alone be called the example, because such a definition would overextend to the application statement as well. Some scholars say that the example is a sentence that produces expectancy for the application. This is the general definition of an example. When a specific reference to affirmative or negative provision is added, the special definitions of affirmative and negative examples are obtained. Repetition of the relative pronoun. The teachers hold that in the sentence, whatever possesses smoke possesses fire, repetition of the relative pronoun whatever is made to prevent deviation of the reason from the probandom. But where the provision of reason by probandom is known through co-location, repetition of the relative pronoun is unnecessary. In purely affirmative inference, even without repetition, the problem of deviation of the reason from the probandom does not arise, this is our view. Repetition occurs only with the relative pronoun, not with the correlative pronoun. A correlative pronoun can apprehend the meanings expressed by relative pronouns bearing different case endings, thus a word uttered once expresses the meaning retained in the mind without violating linguistic rules. Defective examples are of five kinds on account of the following divisions, devoid of the probandum, devoid of the reason. Devoid of both probandum and reason, devoid of a locus, possessing an unstated affirmative provision, presenting affirmative provision in reverse, possessing an unstated negative provision, and presenting negative provision in reverse. Definition of the application. 20. After the example statement has been uttered, the following expectancy arises, the provision has been understood, but is the pervaded reason property present in the subject or not? The application is then stated, by which the subject propertyhood of the reason pervaded by the probandom is displayed. In general, the application is that member of Nyaya which produces the cognition that generates the third substantive reflection on the inferential mark, the cause of inferential cognition. The application has two special definitions. First, that member of Nyaya which produces cognition of the subject qualified by a reason pervaded by the probandom. Second, that member of Nyaya which produces cognition of the subject endowed with the counter-positive of an absence of the reason that pervades the absence of the probandom. For example, in affirmative inference, the expression so too this mountain produces the third subsumptive reflection, this mountain possesses smoke pervaded by fire. In purely negative inference, the expression so-to-this-earth produces the cognition this earth possesses odor, which is the counter positive of absence of odor that pervades the absence of difference from the other eight substances. Certain saccas say that the use of nyaya ends with the three members thesis, reason, an example, and that application and conclusion are unnecessary. This view is not sound. The third subsumptive reflection, combining perversion and subject propertyhood, is produced by no other member, but only by the application. Although the MSACA does not accept the third subsumptive reflection as the cause of inferential cognition, other scholars do accept it as such, therefore the application cannot be omitted. The application is necessary. 21. It should not be said that the subject propertyhood of the reason can be understood from the reason statement itself. The reason statement fulfills the expectancy for the nature of the reason as the cause of the probandom, it is not uttered to convey the presence of the reason in the subject. Nor should it be said that subject propertyhood is implicitly known from the opponent's reason statement. Until the meaning of the reason statement is settled, it cannot imply subject propertyhood. Otherwise pervasion, the reason and subject propertyhood would all be implied by the thesis alone, and the other members of Naya would become pointless. Nor is it sound to say that the opponent will understand pervasion and subject propertyhood on his own. Neither proponent nor opponent is omniscient, it is not universally possible to understand everything unaided. The opponent must himself perform his proper task, that is, employ the application. Otherwise a mission of the other members too would become admissible. conclusion statement. After the application, the conclusion is stated. The conclusion is the sentence that produces cognition of the probandom on the basis of the substantive reflection generated by cognition of perversion and subject propertyhood. The question, what is the purpose of the conclusion, is not sound. The first four members yield cognition of perversion and subject propertyhood, but unless the absence of a defeating reason and the absence of an equally strong counter reason are ascertained, those four members do not culminate in inferential cognition. The conclusion completes the inference by conveying these absences. Objection, there is no expectancy for the conclusion. 23, an objection may be raised, once pervasion and subject propertyhood have been expressed, the reason is complete, and no expectancy for another member remains. Any doubt concerning the absence of the probandom should be removed by those very members, otherwise the conclusion 2 cannot remove that doubt, since the conclusion is not a special sensory perception. Nor should it be said that the conclusion removes doubt by expressing the subject as endowed with an established probandom. If the conclusion states only the nature of the probandom and not its established status, then the ablative meaning because of such a reason cannot be related to the probandom. The answer is that even after perversion and subject propertyhood are known, cognition of the probandom does not arise because of the possibility of a defeating reason and of an equally strong counter reason. Only after the absence of a defeater and of a counter reason is known as the intended inferential cognition obtained, the conclusion expresses this result fully. Knowledge of the absence of defeaters and the like is necessary. An objection may be raised, the actual absence of a defeating reason and an equally strong counter reason may assist inferential cognition, but not cognition of their absence, because no means for such cognition is available and its semantic relation is also unestablished. This objection is not sound. The rule of pavasion is, that which does not arise in the presence of cognition of something arises from cognition of that thing's absence. Therefore cognition of the absence of a defeating reason and of the absence of an equally strong counter-reason is necessary. It should not be said that the ablative meaning of therefore is unrelated to the probandom as established. Through the relation expressed by the ablative, the probandom's freedom from further expectancy, that is, its established status, is cognized, this cognition arises only after the ablative relation is established. Consequently, the establishment of the probandom is known precisely from the conclusion. refers to the reason. 25. Some scholars say that in therefore, so, the correlative pronoun so has the reason side in view, not the pro-bandom side. Therefore draws the conclusion after considering all forms of the reasoned provision, subject propertyhood, absence of a defeater, and so forth. This view, however, is not sound. It is unclear whether so refers to the previously stated reason's nature, qualifier, or similarity. The application begins with so to this, whereas the conclusion begins with therefore, so, if the same reason side were intended in both places, the sentence meaning would become disconnected. The alternative that the subject of the reason is the subject in general is also on sound, because relating the subject in doubt with the reason merely to a general subject would be incoherent. The alternative of similarity is likewise incoherent. In inferences of identity and in purely affirmative inferences, similarity among subjects cannot be apprehended in the conclusion. Objection, the relation between, therefore, and, so, would be incoherent. 26, an objection may be raised, when, so, refers to the various intended features of the reason, therefore, cannot be related to a general qualifier of the pro-bandom. If in the The opponent's statement, therefore, so, therefore, is also held to connect with the contextually supplied qualifier of the probandom over extension results. The answer is that so refers to the cognized form of the previously stated reason. Because therefore refers back through the correlative so, it requires no separate relation beyond the knownness of the reason. On the basis of cognition of the qualified reason, therefore is connected with the qualified probandom. In the conclusion, therefore sound is impermanent, the established status of the probandum impermanence is specifically cognized in sound. Thus there is no need to relate the meaning of therefore again to the probandum impermanence, the matter stated as probandum in the thesis is reaffirmed in the conclusion by establishing its relation to the reason. Doubt, purpose, and the like are not members. 27. Doubt, purpose, and the like are not members of nyaya. possess none of the characteristics of a member of Nyaya, their use in Nyaya is merely as auxiliary material, not as an enlargement of the number of members. Questions such as, does it possess fire, or how does smoke indicate fire, are not universally necessary, they are useful only in special contexts. With this, the section on the members of Nyaya in the inference division of Tatvassant Mayans. Phalacious reasons Phalacious reasons assist in determining truth and attaining victory, therefore they are explained here. General definition of a phalacious reason 2. The cognition of that factor which is the counter positive of being the object of valid cognition, that is, which consists in the absence of a cause of inferential cognition, obstructs inference, alternatively, the status of a reason whose cognition abstracts inference is fallacious reasonhood. For example, in the faulty inference, fire is not hot because it is a substance, substancehood is a fallacious reason, because the absence of heat, the object opposed to the veridical cognition, fire is hot, is not pervaded by substancehood. An alternative definition, the status of a reason such that, when it is known, cognition of the reason becomes an obstruction to inference is fallacious reasonhood. In the faulty inference, the mountain possesses smoke because it possesses fire, the cognition concerning the reason fire is pervaded by smoke obstructs inference, hence the reason fire is fallacious. According to the ancient scholars, the status of a reason whose cognition obstructs inferential cognition is fallacious reasonhood. In the faulty inference, the fireless mountain possesses smoke, when the absence of fire on the mountain is known, the reason smoke obstructs inference of fire. These definitions describe fallacies of reasons in general. Fallacious reasons as grounds of defeat will be discussed later. The general definitions include the fallacious reasons. In some contexts an uncommon reason and an equally strong counter reason also become fallacious reasons, cognition of them obstructs inferential cognition. It is not sound to deny that a defeated reason and an equally strong counter reason are fallacious on the claim that they obstruct only perceptual and verbal cognition. The foregoing definitions include reasons whose cognition obstructs cognitions of those kinds. An alternative view and the division of fallacious reasons. For, according to an alternative view, in perception, and other cognitions a defeated reason and an equally strong counter reason do not prevent the production of cognition, but merely render the produced cognition invalid. In inference, however, these two defects of a reason prevent the very production of cognition. Fallacious reasons are of five kinds, one, deviating or inconclusive, two, contradictory, three, counterbalanced by an equally strong reason, four, unestablished, and, five, defeated. The five corresponding defects are deviation, contradiction, counterbalance, non-establishment, and defeat. With this, the general account of fallacious reasons ends. The deviating or inconclusive reason. 5. The deviating or inconclusive reason is of three kinds, common, uncommon, and non-exclusive. The definition that which establishes both the probandom and its absences deviating does not equally include all three kinds, because one and the same reason cannot establish both the probandom and its absence, nor can it make both doubtful. Nor is occurrence in both similar and counter instances, or absence from both, the general definition of deviation, because these properties are not sequential but occur in separate divisions. A common reason occurs in both similar and counter instances, an uncommon reason occurs in neither, and a non-exclusive reason is invariably connected with both the probandom and its absence and produces doubt. Gangesa rejects the view that a deviating reason establishes both the probandum and its absence. One and the same reason cannot establish both, nor can it render both indeterminate. A currents in both similar and counter instances, exclusion from both, and invariable connection with both probandum and its absence are found respectively only in common, uncommon, and non-exclusive reasons. The ancient scholar's definition of deviation. The proposal may be made that a deviating reason is an intended reason whose cognition of subject propertyhood, becoming the object of cognition, causes recollection of two mutually opposed alternatives that produces doubt concerning the pro-bandom. But the doubtful statement, is sound impermanent or not, is itself neither the object of cognition of subject propertyhood nor the cause of recollecting two opposed alternatives. Common, uncommon, and non-exclusive reasons produced out respectively because of occurrence in both similar and counter instances, absence from both, and invariable connection with both pro-bandom and absence of pro-bandom. The non-exclusive reason in the purely affirmative inference, all things are knowable because they are nameable, and the uncommon reason in, this is a jar because it is this object, are sometimes faultless. A person's failure to understand such a faultless reason is a defect of that person's ignorance, not of the reason. even faultless uses of common reasons and equally strong counter reasons would have to be treated as fallacious owing to ignorance. Refutation of under extension 7. An objection may be raised. The foregoing definition of deviation does not include a common reason. In the inferences, this object is identical with this object because it is knowable, and sound is impermanent because it is either sound or something else, the common reason is not present in the subject as endowed with the probandom and therefore appears contradictory. This objection is not sound. Even if the common reason is not cognized as a property in the subject, cognition of the universality of the individual reason and the demonstration of that universality can obstruct both inference for oneself and inference for another. To establish the defect of a common reason, both the presence of the reason in the subject as subject propertyhood and commonness must be demonstrated, the commonness thus demonstrated constitutes the defect of the reason. The ancient scholars reject this objection of under extension, saying that common reasons such as no ability or being sound or something else are not situated in the subject as endowed with the probandom and therefore appear contradictory, nevertheless, the generality of the individual reason and its demonstration obstruct inference. The commoness of a common reason consists in the occurrence of the reason in both similar and counter instances, this is its defect. of the argument for an alternative definition. 8. The foregoing refutation also rejects the view that a reason present in the subject and undifferentiated from a deviation relation opposed to inference is deviating. Occurrence in both similar and counter instances, exclusion from both, and non-exclusiveness are respectively the distinct forms of deviation belonging to common, uncommon, and non-exclusive these divisions will therefore be explained without mutual intermixture of classes. A contradictory reason too can in this broad sense be called deviating, but the special conditions of the common, uncommon, and non-exclusive divisions will be separately explained below. Occurrence in both similar and counter-instances, exclusion from both, and non-exclusiveness, these three relations of deviation opposed to inference occur separately in common, uncommon, and non-exclusive reasons respectively. A contradictory reason too may sometimes be called deviating in this broad sense, but the special characteristics of common, uncommon, and non-exclusive reasons are not mutually intermixed. The extraneous conditions distinguishing these three will be explained below. Reason for rejecting the alternative definition. 9. Whether cognition is present or absent, knowledge of each specific property, such as commonness, uncommonness, and non-exclusiveness is necessary for recognizing the defect of the foregoing forms of deviation. Therefore the qualifier present in the subject is pointless in the definition of a deviating reason. For the same reason, the following definitions are also rejected, a fallacious reason not pervaded by the probandom, when it is pervaded by the absence of the probandom, or a reason occurring only in a subject distinct from similar instances endowed with the probandom. In the first definition, not pervaded by the probandom is an unnecessary qualifier, in the second, fallacious reasonhood is not already known. These definitions include the contradictory reason along with the common reason, as In other words, an ether is impermanent because it is the substratum of sound. Refutation of another definition. 10. Neither excluded from all similar and all counter instances, nor occurring in both similar and counter instances, can be a general characteristic of a deviating reason. These formulations contain unnecessary qualifiers and fail to include the non-exclusive reason. When an object distinct from the subject and endowed with the probandom is treated as a similar instance, this definition excludes a non-exclusive inference such as, all knowable things are impermanent, because here no separate similar or counter instance is established. And when the subject itself is treated as a similar instance, an uncommon reason is improperly included in the definition. Refutation of yet another definition 11. Nor is either of the following a general characteristic of deviation, a reason occurring only encounter instances distinct from the subject and not in similar instances, or a reason occurring only in similar instances distinct from the subject and not in counter instances. The first formulation does not include a non-exclusive reason and overextends to a faultless common reason, the second becomes intermixed with contradictory and uncommon reasons. The definition present in the subject, distinct from a contradictory reason, and devoid of a relation assisting inference likewise contains pointless qualifiers. The successive refutation of these definitions establishes that no single recurrent definition covering all deviating reasons is possible. Only their separate divisions constitute the actual defects. With this, the prima facie discussion of deviation ends.

← Transcript index