

Vol. VI, No. 6.] The Pramanas of Hindu Logic. 293 



[N.S.] 



*5r#f srw ^ttjb *fsftfji f*r*H% ^r^rwrf^r i^r iff^Fir 

 t^f^r^^Tftn i «l i ^ i \ i 



These five marks are (1) effect, (2) cause, (3) connected 

 thing, (4) opposed thing, and (5) something existing in inti- 

 mate relation. Thus (1) from smoke is inferred fire (effect to 

 cause), (2) from observing the contact of the stick with the 

 drum is inferred sound (from cause to effect) when the sound 

 is inaudible, (3) from observation of the body is inferred the 

 sense of touch, which is connected with the body, (4) from the 

 crouching of a snake is inferred the presence of an ichneumon 

 (the snake and the ichneumon are supposed to be in eternal 

 enmity), (5) from the temperature of water is inferred the pres- 

 ence of heat in water. Here we notice the same defect as we 

 noticed in Gotama ; this is a mere enumeration of the various 

 kinds of deduction ; it does not show in what consists the essence 

 of the process. For one acquainted with the doctrine of the 

 vyapti such an enumeration can never take its place. If Kanada 

 had known the vyapti, he would undoubtedly have said that 

 the linga (mark) is the vyapya and the major term is vyapaka. 

 Pragastapada in his Padarthadharma-sangraha and Kuma- 

 rila in his tjloka-vartika seem clearly to have known the true 

 nature of « deduction. There are two verses in the Padartha- 

 dharma-sangraha which credit one Kagyapa with the enuncia- 

 tion of the true theory of deduction 



Pragastapada Bhasya (Vizianagram Sanskrit Series), p. 200. 



Translation. — "That mark {linga) which is connected 

 with the subject of the inference (paksa) 9 and is known to exist 

 in what contains the major term read in connotation (sa- 



pak 



has 



pak 



what is without the major term 



apa 



teristics is not a real middle term (hetu or linga), and gives rise 

 to the fallacies of contradiction, false minor premiss, or 



doubt." 



Now Kagyapa is popularly supposed to be only another 

 name of Kanada. But a new difficulty arises here : " Why 



did Kanada 



ad to inference ' Pro 



gastapada had felt this difficulty and tried to solve it in bis own 

 way. He says 



