Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon c26.s2.9

c26.s2.9

Dignāga also defined the essential conditions of the middle term or cause (hetu); it must be present in the subject or minor term, e. g. smoke on the mountain; it must be comprehended in the major or predicate, e. g. where there is smoke, there must always be fire; the middle must not exist in things heterogeneous to the major term, e. g. smoke is entirely absent where there is no fire. The doctrine, like that of universal connexion, is criticized by Nyāya writers of the orthodox school, like Uddyotakara. On defects in this relation are based the fallacies of the middle, and Dignāga recognizes also fallacies of the thesis and the example, which the later logicians reject, but which influenced Praçastapāda. The logical advance in rejecting these fallacies is obvious.