Jain Tark Shastra Me Hetu Prayog - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Jain tark shastra me Hetu Prayog" by Darbarilal Kothiya, focusing on the concept of "hetu" (reason/ground) in Jain logic:

Title: Application of Reason (Hetu) in Jain Logic

Author: Dr. Darbarilal Kothiya

Core Concept: The Centrality of Hetu in Inference (Anumana)

The text emphasizes that in the field of epistemology (Pramana Shastra), inference (Anumana) holds a crucial position. Inference is the means by which we gain knowledge of things that are not directly perceptible by the senses. This includes subtle, past, future, and distant objects. Inference is defined as knowing the unknown from the known, or establishing a probandum (sadhya) through a probans (hetu). Examples provided include inferring heavy rainfall from a swollen river, an elephant submerged in water from its trunk, and fire from smoke. This method of inference is accepted by all Indian philosophical schools except for Charvaka.

Debate on the Number of Components of Inference:

Indian philosophical traditions differ on the number of components (angas or avayavas) of inference. While some accept as few as one and others as many as ten, the text highlights that hetu is universally accepted as a principal component.

Defining and Differentiating Hetu:

Hetu is the statement used as a means (sadhan) or sign (linga) to establish the probandum (anumeya).
While "sadhan" and "hetu" are often used interchangeably, there's a subtle distinction:
- Sadhan is the thing itself (the object serving as the sign).
- Hetu is the statement that articulates the sadhan, making it the "speaker" (wachak) of the means. Thus, "hetu is the statement of the means."

The Tri-Rupa (Three-Marked) Hetu and its Counterparts:

The text delves into the widely accepted concept of the tri-rupa hetu (hetu having three characteristics), as defined by the Nyaya school (Akshapada). This tri-rupa hetu is characterized by:

Sadharma (Similarity): The hetu must be present in the case of similarity (sapaksha), where the probandum is present.
Vaidharmya (Dissimilarity): The hetu must be absent in the case of dissimilarity (vipaksha), where the probandum is absent.
Presence in the Subject (Paksha): The hetu must reside in the subject (paksha) for which the probandum is to be proven.

This tri-rupa hetu is supported by Vatsyayana and Udyotakara. Kashyapa (Kanada) and Prashastapada also define hetu as something related to the probandum, present in cases of similarity, and absent in cases of dissimilarity. Buddhist logicians like the author of Nyaya Pravesha, Dharmakirti, and Dharmottara also advocate for the application of the tri-rupa hetu. Even Sankhya scholar Mathara emphasizes the tri-rupa hetu.

Beyond the Tri-Rupa: Other Conceptions of Hetu:

The text notes that besides the tri-rupa hetu, other conceptions exist in logic, including:

Dvi-rupa (Two-Marked), Chatur-rupa (Four-Marked), Pancha-rupa (Five-Marked): Mentioned by Udyotakara, Vachaspati, and Jayanta Bhatta, suggesting these were also accepted by some Naiyayikas.
Shat-rupa (Six-Marked): Suggested by Dharmakirti for critical analysis.
Sapta-rupa (Seven-Marked): Suggested by Vadiraja for critical analysis.

While these latter ones might have been for commentary, they indicate a broader exploration of the characteristics of a valid hetu.

The Jain Approach: The Uni-Rupa (One-Marked) Hetu - Avinābhāva (Inseparable Concomitance)

The core argument of the text, and the distinctive Jain contribution, is the assertion that Jain logicians accept only one form of hetu: the avinābhāvin (inseparably concomitant) hetu.

Avinābhāva means that the hetu must not exist in the absence of the probandum and must exist in its presence. It is also called anyathānupapannatva (unexplainability otherwise) or anyathānupapatti.
Jain thinkers believe that the various formulations (tri-rupa, dvi-rupa, etc.) are encompassed within this single concept of avinābhāva.
Samantabhadra in his Aptamimamsa introduced the characteristic of 'avirodha' (non-contradiction) in his definition of hetu. This signifies that regardless of the number of marks, the hetu must be non-contradictory with the probandum, meaning it must be inseparably concomitant.
Acharya Akalanka clarifies Samantabhadra's intent, stating that while Samantabhadra implied the tri-rupa hetu, the crucial addition of 'avirodha' highlights the importance of anyathanupapatti. He points out that some hetus that possess the three marks (like "being his son") are invalid because they lack anyathanupapatti. Conversely, hetus that lack the three marks but possess anyathanupapatti are valid.
Vidyānanda also supports this interpretation, emphasizing the significance of 'avirodha' as a defining characteristic of the hetu.
Patraswamin, though his independent works are not fully extant, is credited with a treatise called "Trilakshana Kadarthana," which likely refuted the tri-rupa hetu and championed the uni-rupa hetu. Shantarashita quotes Patraswamin extensively, supporting the idea that anyathanupapannatva is the sole characteristic of a valid hetu, rendering other marks superfluous.
Siddhasena also defines hetu with the terminology of anyathanupapannatvam heturlakshanam eeritam, indicating the prior establishment of this definition.
Bhatta Akalanka further strengthened this concept in his works, integrating Patraswamin's views into his own.
Later Jain logicians like Kumarnandi, Virasena, Vidyānanda, Manikyanandi, Prabhachandra, Anantavirya, Vadiraja, Devsuri, Shantissuri, Hemachandra, Dharmabhushan, Yashovijaya, and Charukirti have consistently followed and supported this uni-rupa (avinābhāvi-anyathanupapanna) hetu, analyzing and refuting other multi-rupya hetu concepts.

Why the Jain Emphasis on Avinābhāva?

The text argues that accepting multi-rupya hetus leads to defects like avyapakatva (under-application) and ativyapakatva (over-application). Jain thinkers believe that the sole criterion of avinābhāva is sufficient for establishing the probandum.

Two Modes of Applying Hetu:

The text concludes by noting that the application of hetu occurs in two ways:

Tathopapatti (Presence of the Sign): The hetu is present when the probandum is present. Example: Smoke is present when there is fire.
Anyathanupapatti (Unexplainability Otherwise): The hetu is absent when the probandum is absent. Example: Smoke is absent when there is no fire.

While these modes are similar to sadharmya and vaidharmya (or anvaya and vyatireka), they are distinguished by the presence of a rule (niyama or evakara). Sadharmya and vaidharmya can be contingent, whereas tathopapatti and anyathanupapatti are inherently certain due to this rule. Furthermore, these two modes are considered gnostic (knowing), while sadharmya and vaidharmya are gnosable properties (properties of what is known). Jain scholars preferred the former as it directly addresses the inferential knowledge process. Jain logicians consider the application of either tathopapatti or anyathanupapatti to be sufficient, not necessarily both.