Hetu Ke Rup - Book Summary | JainGPT

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Hetu ke Rup" (Forms of the Middle Term/Reason):

This text, "Hetu ke Rup," by Sukhlal Sanghavi, published by Jain Education International, discusses the different philosophical traditions concerning the definition of hetu (a middle term or reason used in logical inference). The author identifies four main traditions: Vaigeshika, Sankhya, Buddhist; 2-Naayayika; 3-Unknown name; and 4-Jain.

1. The Tradition of Tri-Rupa (Three Forms):

The first tradition, encompassing the Vaigeshika, Sankhya, and Buddhist philosophies, defines a hetu by three essential characteristics:
- Pakshasattva: Present in the minor term (paksha).
- Sapakshasattva: Present in the major term (sapaksha).
- Vipakavyavrittatva: Absent from the contrary instance (vipaksha).
The author notes that Vaigeshika and Sankhya appear to be older schools.
He observes that just as Buddhist logicians were influenced by Kanāda's philosophy regarding the two types of pramāṇa (means of knowledge) – perception and inference – they also followed the Vaigeshika system in defining the forms of hetu.
The text cites Prasastapada's commentary, which mentions a kārikā (verse) attributed to Kāshyapa that describes the three forms of hetu.
Mathara, in his commentary, also refers to these same three forms.
Numerous Buddhist texts, including Abhidharmakosa, Pramāṇasamuccaya, Nyāyapraveśa, Nyāyabindu, Hetubindu, and Tattvasaṅgraha, support the "tri-rupa hetu" as the definition of a valid hetu.
The author highlights that Buddhist texts elaborate extensively on the description and support of these three forms and the refutation of opposing views, more so than purely Vaigeshika or Sankhya texts.

2. The Nayyayika Tradition of Pancha-Rupa (Five Forms):

The Nayyayika school, in addition to the three forms mentioned above, proposes two more characteristics for a hetu, thus supporting the concept of "pancha-rupya" (five forms). These additional forms are:
- Abādhita-vishayatva: The object of the inference is not contradicted.
- Asat-pratipakhitatva: The reason is not invalidated by a counter-reason.
It's uncertain who first proposed this addition, but Udyotakara (in Nyāyavārttika) is considered a likely proponent.
Archata (commentator on Hetubindu) and Sridhara (following Prasastapada) included the Nayyayika's five forms within their own discussions.
However, the author points out that despite later Nayyayikas like Vācaspati (in Tātparyaṭīkā), Jayanta (in Nyāyamañjarī), and others supporting the five forms, this concept wasn't rigidly maintained within the independent Nayyayika tradition.
Logicians like Gadadhara, for instance, only indicated the three essential forms of hetu (related to vyāpti and pakshadharmatā) in their discussions of logical syllogisms. This suggests a relaxation of the initial Nayyayika insistence on the five forms, eventually returning to the tri-rupa concept.

3. The Unidentified Six-Rupa Tradition:

The text also mentions a tradition that recognizes a sixth characteristic, Ajñātva (unknownness), leading to the concept of "shad-rupa hetu" (six forms of hetu). Archata refers to this tradition vaguely as "Naayayika-mimāṁsakādayaḥ" (Nayyayikas, Mimāṁsakas, and others).
The author suggests that the ancient opinion in Nyayaśāstra that a known linga (sign) is not instrumental (karaṇa) might have originated from this tradition of six forms of hetu.

4. The Jain Tradition of Aviṇābhāva-niyama (Inseparable Connection):

The Jain tradition posits that a hetu has only one essential form: avinābhāva-niyama. This refers to an inseparable connection or concomitance between the hetu and the sādhya (the thing to be proved).
The Jain perspective doesn't claim that the three or five forms recognized by other schools are invalid. Instead, it argues that when valid inferences can be made even without explicitly stating the three or five forms, then avinābhāva-niyama is the only universally applicable and simple defining characteristic for all effective hetus. The other forms are seen as mere elaborations or specific manifestations of this fundamental rule.
While Siddhasena Divakara in Nyāyāvatāra describes the hetu as being inseparable from the sādhya, the author believes Pātrasvāmin was likely the first to strongly advocate avinābhāva-niyama as the sole form of hetu.
Śāntarakṣita, in Tattvasaṅgraha, critiqued the Jain doctrine of avinābhāva-niyama as presented by Pātrasvāmin.
The author speculates that earlier Jain logicians might have generally discussed the inseparable connection as the nature of hetu, but Pātrasvāmin was the first to provide reasoned support for it and refute the Buddhist concept of tri-rupa.
A famous verse, "Anyathānupapannatvaṁ yatra tatra śreyeṇa kim || Nānyathā'nupapannatvaṁ yatra tatra śreyeṇa kim ||" (If it is unexplainable otherwise, what need for the three? If it is not unexplainable otherwise, what need for the three?), cited by Akalanka and Vidyānanda, is attributed to Pātrasvāmin.
The refutation of other schools' definitions of hetu, initiated by Pātrasvāmin, was followed by later Digambara and Śvetāmbara Jain logicians like Akalanka and Vidyānanda.
Following the refutation of the tri-rupa, Jain traditions also began to refute the pancha-rupa. Therefore, in later Jain logical texts by Vidyānanda, Prabhācandra, Vādīdevasūri, and others, both tri-rupa and pancha-rupa are discussed and refuted in detail.

5. Acharya Hemacandra's Contribution:

Acharya Hemacandra follows this tradition and refutes both tri-rupa and pancha-rupa.
While his refutations are similar in content to those of earlier Acharyas like Vidyānanda, Hemacandra shows a particular affinity with Anantavirya's Pramēyaratnamālā in his linguistic style.
A unique characteristic of Hemacandra, observed in many contexts, is his ability to incorporate new ideas into Jain tradition, even if briefly.
The author notes that Hemacandra, while presenting the Buddhist tri-rupa as a preliminary argument, quotes extensively and verbatim from the Dharmottara commentary on Nyāyabindu. This extensive quotation of Buddhist material is not found in other earlier Jain logical works and is considered valuable for students of Jain logic, even as a preliminary concept.

6. The "Anyathānupapannatva" Verse and its Legacy:

The "Anyathānupapannatva" verse, due to its logical soundness, has been established throughout the Jain tradition.
Vidyānanda even created a verse to refute the pancha-rupa, partially modeled after this verse.
While the verse's authority should ideally stem from its logical strength within the field of logic, its influence has been amplified by non-logical devotees.
This influence has led to fantastical claims, such as the verse being originally authored by the Tirthankara Simandharaswami, or brought by the deity Padmavatī from Simandharaswami to Pātrasvāmin. The author expresses concern that a logically sound verse is attributed to Simandharaswami due to blind devotion.
The author acknowledges that Hemacandra also uses this verse.
It is strongly suggested that Pātrasvāmin, likely from the Digambara tradition, was the originator of this verse, as the devotional and fabricated stories surrounding it are confined to the Digambara tradition.

In essence, the text traces the evolution of the definition of a logical reason (hetu) across major Indian philosophical schools, highlighting the Jain tradition's singular focus on an inseparable connection (avinābhāva-niyama) as the ultimate criterion, and tracing the intellectual lineage of this concept within Jain logic.