Indian Philosophy v2.c24.s5.32

v2.c24.s5.32

Regarding the distribution of the middle term, it is said: (1) that the middle should cover the whole of the extension of the minor, as in the illustration, “ sound is non-eternal because it is a product,” where the middle term product includes all cases of sound (All S is M); (2) that all things denoted by the middle must be homogeneous with the things denoted by the major, as in the example, “ all products are non-eternal ” (All M is P), and (3) that none of the things heterogeneous from the major term must be included in the middle, “ no non-eternal thing is a product ” (No non P is M). Dignāga insists that the middle term must be universally and invariably connected with the major term. Uddyotakara argues that there must be a universal relation between the middle and the major, such that, wherever the major is, there must be the middle, and wherever the major is not, the middle must not be. Praśastapāda affirms the same view when he says that the liṅga, or the middle term, is “ that which is related to the object to be inferred, and is known to exist in that which is connected with that object, and does not exist where it is not present.”³ Varadarāja mentions five characteristics of the middle term, which are: (1) pakṣadharmatā, or the presence of the middle in the minor, the smoke in the hill; (2) sapakṣasattva, or the presence of the middle in positive instances homogeneous with the proven, as smoke in the kitchen; (3) vipakṣasattva, or non-presence of the middle in negative instances heterogeneous from the proven, as no smoke in the lake; (4) abādhitaviṣayatva, or non-incompatibility with the minor; and (5) asatpratipakṣatva, or the absence of counteracting forces.¹ In the case of an exclusively affirmative or exclusively negative inference, the valid middle term fulfils only four requirements, since it cannot abide in negative or positive instances. Annam Bhaṭṭa holds that the middle term is of three kinds corresponding to the three kinds of inference: (1) positive and negative (anvayavyatirekin), where the middle is invariably concomitant with the major, as smoke with fire, wherever there is smoke there is fire, as in the kitchen: where there is no fire, there is no smoke, as in a lake²; (2) merely positive (kevalānvayin), where we have only affirmative invariable concomitance, as in "what is knowable is nameable," where we cannot have a negative instance to illustrate the position "what cannot be named cannot be known"; and, (3) merely negative (kevalavyatirekin), where a positive instance is not possible. All beings that possess animal functions have souls, where we can prove only that chairs and tables have no animal functions, and therefore no souls, but cannot give positive instances, since souls and beings that possess animal functions are coextensive in their nature.³ According to the Vedāntaparibhāṣā, inference from an affirmative universal is regarded as anumāna, while that from a negative universal is treated as arthāpatti, on the ground that there is not in the latter an application of a general principle to a particular case.⁴ The Nyāya is, however, of the view that every