Indian Philosophy v2.c24.s5.25

v2.c24.s5.25

The presence of the middle in the minor (pakṣadharmatā) cannot lead to a valid inference unless it is combined with a universal relation between the middle and the major terms. The third member, udāharaṇa, or example, “whatever is smoky has fire, like the kitchen,” takes us to the basis of inference, the major premise. Gautama means by example a similar instance possessing the essential property of the major term. Vātsyāyana seems to be of the same opinion. There is little to suggest that these two thinkers regarded the example as an illustration of a general rule. It was perhaps their idea that all reasoning was from particulars to particulars. Certain individuals have a given attribute, an individual or individuals resemble the former in certain other attributes: therefore they resemble them also in the given attributes. It may be that the Nyāya syllogism is developed out of the argument by example which Aristotle recognises.¹ It was soon realised that, though it is the way in which we often do reason, it is not a logical inference, where the conclusion is warranted by the premises. The argument is invalid if the example is not indicative of a general rule. The similarity (sādharmya) suggests class nature (sāmānya). Praśastapāda is familiar with the conception of sāhacarya, or concomitance, and attributes it to Kaṇāda.² Later logic equates the third member with the statement of the general relation.³ No inference is possible unless there is an invariable concomitance (vyāpti) between the mark and the character inferred. The Vedāntaparibhāṣā says: “The instrument of inference is the knowledge of the universal relation.”⁴ The mention of the example indicates that inference is both inductive and deductive. The generalisation is based on instances, and it helps us in deducing new truths. The auxiliary and non-essential character of the example was emphasised by Dignāga. Dharmakīrti holds that the example is unnecessary and inserted only to help the person spoken to. The example illustrates but does not establish the universality of the rule. The third member, according to Dr. Seal, “ combines and harmonises Mill’s view of the major premise as a brief memorandum of like instances already observed, fortified by a recommendation to extend its application to unobserved cases, with the Aristotelian view of it as a universal proposition which is the formal ground of the inference.”¹ Examples may be of different kinds, homogeneous or affirmative (sādharmya) where the property to be proved (major) and the ground (middle) are present, as the kitchen, and heterogeneous or negative (vaidharmya), where the property to be proved and the ground are both absent, as the lake.² Dignāga adds to these two, analogical examples. He also mentions ten kinds of fallacies relating to examples, while Siddhasena Divākara gives six kinds of fallacies about homogeneous and six about heterogeneous examples.