Vyapti Vichar

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Vyapti Vichar" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, focusing on the key points discussed in the excerpt:

The text discusses the concept of Vyapti ( व्याप्ति ), a crucial element in Jain logic, particularly concerning Anumana ( अनुमान - inference). It highlights a nuanced debate among Jain logicians regarding the definition and application of Vyapti, and also touches upon the structure of inferential arguments (Pararthanumana - परार्थानुमान).

Key Points on Vyapti:

• Origin of Hemachandra's Definition: The passage begins by questioning why Acharya Hemachandra, after defining Vyapti as Avinabhava ( अविनाभाव - inseparable concomitance), later presented a specific definition for Vyapti as a subject of logical inquiry. The answer is attributed to the influence of Archata, a logician whose explanation of Vyapti, differentiating between the pervasive and the pervaded aspects (व्यापकधर्म and व्याप्यधर्म), was so compelling that Hemachandra incorporated it directly into his work.

• Archata's Problem and Solution: Archata addressed a problem posed by a logician: if Vyapti is a relationship like samyoga ( संयोग - conjunction), where two related entities can interchangeably be the "conjoined" and the "conjoining," why can't the hetu ( हेतु - middle term/reason) and sadhya ( साध्य - major term/probandum) in an inference be interchangeable? Archata solved this by proposing that Vyapti is not a uniform relationship like conjunction. Instead, he posited two forms of Vyapti:

  • Vyapyadharma-rup Vyapti ( व्याप्यधर्मरूप व्याप्ति ): Where the prakriti ( प्रकृति - nature) of the pervaded is the reason for gamakatva ( गमकत्व - power of inferring or proving).
  • Vyapakadharma-rup Vyapti ( व्यापकधर्मरूप व्याप्ति ): Where the prakriti of the pervader is the reason for gamyatva ( गम्यत्व - being inferred or proved). This distinction ensures that the relationship between hetu and sadhya is not arbitrary, just as the relationship between a container and its contents is not arbitrary.

• Nava-Nyaya Perspective: The text then contrasts Archata's view with the development in Nava-Nyaya ( नव्यन्याय - Neo-Nyaya). Gangeśa, a prominent figure in Nava-Nyaya, discussed various types of Vyapti. His "purvapakshiya vyapti" ( पूर्वपक्षीय व्याप्ति - preliminary Vyaptis) refine the concept of avyabhicaritvam ( अव्यभिचरितत्व - non-deviation), which is essentially equivalent to Archata's vyapyadharma-rup vyapti. Gangeśa's "siddhanta vyapti" ( सिद्धान्तव्याप्ति - thesis Vyapti) involves the refinement of vyapakatva ( व्यापकत्व - pervasiveness), corresponding to Archata's vyapakadharma-rup vyapti. However, Gangeśa doesn't consider this latter aspect as Vyapti itself but rather as pervasiveness, and defines Vyapti as the co-location (samanadhikaranya) of the pervaded and the pervader. The author suggests that if Hemachandra had been aware of Gangeśa's more subtle analysis, he might have incorporated it.

• Synonymity and Unique Adoption: The text acknowledges that Vyapti, Avinabhava, and Niyat Sahacharya ( नियत साहचर्य - invariable concomitance) are generally considered synonymous in logic. While the definition of Vyapti through Avinabhava is common in Jain texts from Manikyanandi onwards, Hemachandra's adoption of Archata's specific nuanced view is noted as unique among Jain logicians.

Key Points on the Structure of Anumana (Pararthanumana):

• Disagreement on the Number of Limbs: The text then shifts to discuss the structure of inferential arguments (Pararthanumana). It notes a disagreement among different schools of thought regarding the number of "limbs" or steps required in an argument:

  • Sankhya logicians accept three limbs: Pratigna ( प्रतिज्ञा - proposition), Hetu ( हेतु - reason), and Drishtanta ( दृष्टान्त - example).
  • Mimamsakas: While Vadideva states they accept three, Hemachandra and Anantavirya state they accept four. The text clarifies that Shaliknath and Parathasarathi Mishra, following Prabhakara, support the three-limb view, suggesting Hemachandra and Anantavirya might have been referring to a specific Mimamsa tradition that accepted four limbs.
  • Naiyayikas accept five limbs.
  • Buddhist logicians accept a minimum of two (often Hetu and Drishtanta) and a maximum of just one (Hetu) for highly qualified listeners.

• Jain Perspective: Flexibility and Anekantha: Jain logicians, in line with their principle of anekanta ( अनेकान्त - manifoldness of viewpoints), do not rigidly fix the number of limbs. Both Digambara and Shvetambara Jain scholars believe the number of limbs should be adapted to the listener's understanding and capacity, ranging from fewer to more.

• Manikyanandi's View: Manikyanandi accepted a minimum of two limbs (Pratigna and Hetu) and a maximum of five limbs (up to Nigamana - conclusion) depending on the listener. The author suggests Hemachandra's view aligns with this.

• Vadideva's View: Vadideva's perspective is distinct. He, like the Buddhists, believed that for a highly intelligent listener, even a single limb (Hetu) is sufficient. He also proposed that for different levels of understanding, the number of limbs can be two (Pratigna, Hetu), three (Pratigna, Hetu, Example), four (Sopanay), or five (Sannigaman).

• Historical Distinction: Digambara vs. Shvetambara: A significant historical distinction is highlighted:

  • Digambara tradition: No Digambara scholar mentions or discusses the ten limbs described in the ancient Niyukti attributed to Bhadrabahu.
  • Shvetambara tradition: All Shvetambara logicians (citing Vadideva) refer to and describe these ten limbs (different from those described by Vatsyayana in Nyaya Bhashya) for specialized audiences, as per the Niyukti. The author speculates that this divergence might be due to the Digambara tradition's eventual detachment from ancient scriptural literature like the Agamas.

• Manikyanandi on Pradesh ( प्रदेश ): Manikyanandi's observation that the difference between two and five limbs should be understood in terms of Pradesh ( प्रदेश - context or scope) is considered important. In "Thada Pradesh" ( स्थात् प्रदेश - a specific context), two limbs are considered standard, while in "Shastra Pradesh" ( शास्त्र प्रदेश - the broader scriptural context), two to five limbs are optional based on the audience.

• Vadideva's Specific Admission: Vadideva's unique point is his explicit acceptance that, similar to Buddhist views for expert scholars, a single Hetu can be sufficient for learned individuals. This clear acceptance is not explicitly stated by Hemachandra.