Nyāya Sūtras 48
Nyāyabhāṣya 48
- Language
- Sanskrit
48.3
siddhāntam abhyupetya tadvirodhī viruddhaḥ ||
Having accepted an established tenet, that which contradicts it is contradictory.
48.4
taṃ viruṇaddhīti tadvirodhy abhyupetaṃ siddhāntaṃ vyāhantīti/ yathā so 'yaṃ vikāro vyakter apaiti nityatvapratiṣedhāt ---
'Contradicts it' means that it conflicts with it, that is, it undermines the accepted established tenet. For instance: 'This modification departs from manifestation, because of the denial of eternality—'
48.5
na nityo vikāra upapadyata apeto 'pi vikāro 'sti vināśapratiṣedhāt/ so 'yaṃ nityatvapratiṣedhād iti/ hetur vyakter apeto 'pi vikāro 'stīty anena svasiddhāntena virudhyate/ katham? vyaktir ātmalābhaḥ/ apāyaḥ pracyutiḥ/ yady ātmalābhāt pracyuto vikāro 'sti nityatvapratiṣedho nopapadyate/ yad vyakter apetasyāpi vikārasyāstitvaṃ tat khalu nityatvam iti/ nityatvapratiṣedho nāma vikārasyātmalābhāt pracyuter upapattiḥ/
[For instance, ‘this modification departs from manifestation because impermanence is negated’:] A modification does not become eternal; even when departed, a modification exists, because destruction is negated. This [logical reason], ‘because impermanence is negated’, is contradicted by this established tenet of his own: ‘even when departed from manifestation, a modification exists’. How so? Manifestation is the acquisition of its own nature; departure is falling away [from it]. If, having fallen away from the acquisition of its own nature, a modification exists, the negation of impermanence is not tenable; for that very existence of a modification even after departing from manifestation is indeed permanence. What is called ‘the negation of impermanence’ is the tenability of the modification's falling away from the acquisition of its own nature.
48.6
yad ātmalābhāt pracyavate tad anityaṃ dṛṣṭam, yad asti na tad ātmalābhāt pracyavate/ astitvaṃ cātmalābhāt pracyutir iti ca viruddhāv etau dharmau na saha sambhavata iti/ so 'yaṃ hetur yaṃ siddhāntam āśritya pravartate tam eva vyāhantīti// 6 //
What falls away from the acquisition of its own nature is observed to be impermanent; what exists does not fall away from the acquisition of its own nature. And these two contradictory properties—existence and falling away from the acquisition of its own nature—cannot co-exist. Thus this logical reason subverts the very established tenet on which it relies. // 6
Translations (1)
- English (machine translation) — English, machine translation
Commentaries (2)
- Nyāyavārtikatātparyaṭīkā — Vācaspati Miśra, Sanskrit
- Nyāyavārttika — Uddyotakara, Sanskrit
Linked texts (1)
- Nyāyasūtra — Akṣapāda Gautama, Sanskrit