Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon c26.s3.1

c26.s3.1

Inferential knowledge is essentially of generality; it cannot reach to the immediateness of presentation; the mountain inferred as fiery is not the presentation of the fire on the mountain at a definite point of time. Its validity must be verified, if desired, by the usual process of action; we must, for instance, go to the mountain and see the fire, which we have inferred from the smoke cloud. An advance is made on Dignāga in the process of examination of the conditions of a correct middle term; the middle must be present in those things only in which the thing to be inferred exists, and absent in all those things in which it is not found; the rule must be observed fully in either case, or the inference will be doubtful. Cases where there is the necessary invariable connexion are limited to three only, in Dharmakīrti's view, namely, identity of nature or essence (*tādātmya*), effect of a cause, and non-perception or non-existence. It has been ingeniously, but quite legitimately, pointed out¹ that this gives a classification of judgement on the basis of positive and negative, with the division of the affirmative judgements into analytical, relation of identity, or causal, relation of effect to cause. Reasoning, therefore, which is defined as knowledge of the inferable derived through the middle term, is of three main types: ‘This is a tree, because it is a pine,’ relation of identity, the species allowing the inference of the genus; ‘Here there is fire, because there is smoke,’ the cause fire is inferred from the effect smoke; and ‘Here is no smoke, because it is not perceived,’ as smoke would, if existent, be perceived. This third variety, based on non-perception or non-existence, is divided into eleven classes, of a somewhat needlessly varied character. The ground of the inference, it will be observed, is thus always a general proposition, which rests on mental activity, and falls under one of three categories.²