Indian Philosophy v2.c24.s5.49

v2.c24.s5.49

It was soon realised that the conclusion repeats the first proposition, while the fourth member is a restatement of the second. Strictly speaking, every syllogism has only three members. Nāgārjuna is said to have started the view of the three-membered syllogism in his Upāyakauśalya Sūtra, where he urges that a conclusion can be established through a reason and an example, affirmative or negative.² Sometimes Dignāga is given the credit for it.³ In his Nyāyapraveśa he mentions only three members of the syllogism, though the third states both an affirmative and a negative example; this hill is on fire, because it has smoke; all that has smoke has fire, like a kitchen, and whatever is not on fire has no smoke, like a lake. In Dignāga the third factor is a general law with suggestive illustrations. Dharmakīrti thinks that even the third member is unnecessary, since the general proposition is implied in the reason. It is enough to say the hill is on fire because it smokes. This form which corresponds to an enthymeme is found much in use in Hindu philosophical treatises as well. The Jaina logicians, Māṇikyanandi and Devasūri,⁴ are of this view. The Mīmāṃsakas and the Vedāntins admit only the three-membered syllogism. The Vedāntaparibhāṣa allows the use of the first three or the last three members.⁵