Jain Darshan Me Hetulakshana - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Jain Darshan me Hetulakshana" by Dharmchand Jain, focusing on the concept of "hetu" (reason or logical mark) in Jain philosophy:

The article "Jain Darshan me Hetulakshana" by Dharmchand Jain explores the concept of hetu (reason or logical mark) in Jain philosophy, contrasting it with other Indian philosophical schools. The central argument is that for Jain thinkers, the sole defining characteristic of a valid hetu is its inseparable connection (avinaabhava) with the saadhya (the proposition to be proved).

I. Introduction to Hetu and its Importance:

The term hetu is crucial in Indian philosophy, particularly in the context of anumana (inference). While in Jain scriptures, hetu can also mean pramana (means of valid knowledge), this article focuses on its logical meaning as a mark that leads to knowledge of something else (saadhya).
Other terms like linga, saadhana, vyaapya, and gamaka are used synonymously with hetu.
While there's no dispute that a hetu is a mark that proves the saadhya, philosophical traditions differ on the exact definition of what constitutes a valid hetu.

II. Major Traditions Regarding the Nature of Hetu:

The author outlines three primary traditions for defining a hetu:

The Tradition of Three Characteristics (Trairupya Parampara):
- Proponents: Vaisheshika, Samkhya, and Buddhist schools.
- Three Characteristics:
  - Pakshadharmatva: Presence in the minor premise (paksha).
  - Sapakshasattva: Presence in the major premise (sapaksha) – cases where the saadhya is known to be present.
  - Vipakshasattva (or Vipakshavyavritti): Absence in the counter-instance (vipaksha) – cases where the saadhya is known to be absent.
- Example: "There is fire on the mountain because there is smoke."
  - Paksha: Mountain (where fire is inferred).
  - Saadhya: Fire.
  - Hetu: Smoke.
  - Smoke is present on the mountain (pakshadharmatva), present in places like a kitchen where fire is known to exist (sapakshasattva), and absent in places like a lake where fire is absent (vipaksha asattva).
- Purpose: The trairupya was developed to refute fallacious reasons (hetvabhasas) like asiddha (unproved), viruddha (contradictory), and anekantika (undetermined or oscillating).
The Tradition of Five Characteristics (Pancharupya Parampara):
- Proponents: Naiyayikas (specifically from Uddyotakara, 6th century CE onwards).
- Five Characteristics: The three from the trairupya tradition plus:
  - Abadhitavishayatva: Not contradicted by direct perception or testimony.
  - Asatpratipakshatva: Not having a counter-reason that proves the opposite.
- Purpose: These two additional characteristics were introduced to refute kalatyayapadishta (delayed or ill-timed) and prakarana (contextual) hetvabhasas.
- Prevalence: The five-characteristic view became dominant in the Nyaya school, leading to the earlier two and three-characteristic views fading. The Buddhists' trairupya was even criticized for being too narrow (avyapti).
- Example: Jayantabhatta stated that knowledge of the saadhya through inference arises from grasping the five-characteristic hetu.
The Jain and Mimamsaka Tradition:
- Mimamsaka View: Did not elaborate on the detailed characteristics like trairupya or pancharupya. Instead, they focused on the vyapti (invariable concomitance) between the hetu (niyamya - regulated) and the saadhya (niyamaka - regulator).
- Jain View: This is presented as the most unique and definitive.
  - Sole Characteristic: The only essential characteristic of a hetu is its inseparable connection (avinaabhava) or unexplainability otherwise (anyathanupapannatva) with the saadhya.
  - Rejection of External Marks: If this avinaabhava exists, the hetu can prove the saadhya even without the trairupya or pancharupya. Conversely, if avinaabhava is absent, the trairupya and pancharupya are useless.

III. Jain Argument Against External Characteristics (Rejection of Rupya):

Jain philosophers strongly argued against the necessity of the trairupya and pancharupya by demonstrating that they are insufficient without avinaabhava and unnecessary when avinaabhava is present.

Example for Trairupya Rejection: "The child in the womb will be dark-skinned, because it is the son of Maitri, like her other children."
- The reason "son of Maitri" satisfies pakshadharmatva, sapakshasattva (other children of Maitri), and vipaksha asattva (fair-skinned children of other mothers).
- However, being a son of Maitri doesn't invariably lead to a dark complexion. The connection is not inseparable (avinaabhava). Therefore, it's a fallacious reason (hetvabhas).
- This point is echoed by Buddhist philosopher Dharmottara, who emphasizes the need for an inseparable connection. Dharmakirti's use of "eva" (only, indeed) in his definition of trairupya also points to the emphasis on inevitability.
Example for Pancharupya Rejection: "This smoke is produced by fire, because of its being (sattva) like previously observed smoke."
- The reason "being (sattva)" is present in the minor premise (this smoke), present in the major premise (previously observed smoke), absent in the counter-instance (smokeless air), not contradicted, and has no counter-reason.
- Despite possessing all five characteristics, "being (sattva)" is not inseparably connected to being produced by fire. The smoke could be due to other causes. Hence, it's a fallacious reason.
- Jain thinkers like Vidyānanda created verses to refute the pancharupya on similar grounds as the trairupya – the absence of anyathanupapannatva makes them useless.

IV. The Jain Concept of Avinaabhava and its Implications:

Definition: Avinaabhava or anyathanupapannatva is the core of Jain logic for defining a hetu. It means that the saadhya cannot be explained or exist without the hetu.
Universality: Jain philosophers like Siddhasena, Akalanka, Bhadrakumaranandi, Manikyanandi, and Devasuri consistently define hetu by this single characteristic.
- Akalanka defines hetu as something that is "unexplainable in the absence of the saadhya."
- Manikyanandi defines it as having an "inseparable connection with the saadhya."
Two Types of Avinaabhava: Manikyanandi categorizes avinaabhava into:
- Sahabhava (co-existence): Includes co-existing, pervasive, and comprehensive reasons.
- Kramabhava (sequential relation): Includes cause-effect, prior-sequence, and subsequent-sequence reasons.

V. Reconciliation of Jain Hetu Characteristics with Specific Hetu Types:

The article then examines how the Jain definition of avinaabhava applies to specific types of hetus recognized by Jain thinkers (prior-sequence, subsequent-sequence, cause, and co-existing).

Cause (Karana) Hetu: Inferring the cause from the effect is often problematic and prone to violation (vyabhichara) because a cause can exist without its effect. The Jain view attempts to mitigate this by defining a hetu as a cause with "unimpeded potentiality" (i.e., a cause that definitely produces the effect). However, the examples provided (like shade from an umbrella) are still seen as potentially fallacious if they don't strictly adhere to avinaabhava. A cause's existence without the effect violates the core Jain principle.
Prior-Sequence (Purvachara) Hetu: Inferring the subsequent event from a prior one (e.g., Krittika constellation rising predicting Shataka constellation rising) faces the same issue. The prior event can occur without the subsequent one, thus violating avinaabhava.
Subsequent-Sequence (Uttarachara) Hetu: This type is generally considered valid because the hetu (subsequent event) only occurs when the saadhya (prior event) is present.
Co-existing (Sahachara) Hetu: In cases of co-existing phenomena, it's not always clear which is the hetu and which is the saadhya. However, if the absence of one invariably leads to the absence of the other, it can be accepted as a hetu.

VI. Tathopapatti and Anyathanupapatti:

Jain philosophy uses two modes of expression for hetu use:

Anyathanupapatti (Unexplainability Otherwise): This is the vyatireka (negative concomitance) aspect, where the hetu is absent when the saadhya is absent.
Tathopapatti (Explanation in Accordance): This is the anvaya (positive concomitance) aspect, where the hetu is present when the saadhya is present.
- Key Distinction from Nyaya: While Nyaya establishes the presence of the saadhya when the hetu is present (anvaya), Jainism emphasizes the presence of the hetu only when the saadhya is present (tathopapatti).
- The vyatireka and anyathanupapatti modes are essentially the same.

VII. Conclusion:

The article concludes that the ultimate criterion for a valid hetu in Jain philosophy is its inseparable connection (avinaabhava or anyathanupapannatva) with the saadhya. This single characteristic encompasses both positive and negative concomitance, making it a comprehensive and self-sufficient definition. The external characteristics (trairupya, pancharupya) proposed by other schools are considered redundant if avinaabhava is present and insufficient if it is absent. Jain philosophy prioritizes the inherent logical relation between the hetu and the saadhya over a mere enumeration of external properties.