1 



Vol. VI, No. 6. J The Prarnanas of Hindu Logic. 295 



[N.S.] 



«T^f fifrg ^T ^TfJtffei?3?JJ 



Translation. — u Sound is non-eternal on account of the 

 possession of the attribute of being produced. That which 

 has want of production as an attribute is eternal {e.g., a sub- 

 stance such as the soul)-" Put into the syllogistic form the 

 argument stands thus: 



Non-produced things are eternal ; 



Sound is produced ; 

 .*. Sound is non-eternal. 



As it stands, this involves the fallacy of five terms. But 

 by taking the full inverse {i.e., the converse of the obverse of 

 the contrapositive) of the major premise we get 



Some produced things are non-eternal ; 

 Sound is produced ; 



• • 



Sound is non-eternal. 



This involves the fallacy of undistributed middle. Vatsa- 

 yana did not see the fallacy of this argument, because, accord- 

 ing to him, the major premiss " Non-produced things are eter- 

 nal " is a U proposition, admitting of simple conversion. 



In fact, clause (3) of the above syllogism ^•rarffpFlffl f*W 

 *TOT WTan"f^5^Ti{ may be directly taken to mean " eternal things 

 are non-produced, e.g., the soul," and then partially contra- 

 posing this we get the following valid syllogism : 



No produced things are eternal ; 



Sound is produced ; 

 .\ Sound is not eternal. 



The language of Vatsayana may surely yield such a mean- 

 ing (making foctyu the subject and vrarf^Wlffl the predicate). 



But we are not allowed so easily to justify Vatsayana. For 

 under I. 1, 37, he says 



1 Readings in the Nyayabhasya , edited by Maharaahopadhyaya 

 Gangadhara 9&stri Tailanga, in the Vizianagram Sanskrit aeries, are 

 generally very unreliable. The edition of Jayanarayana in the Biblio- 

 theca Indica is somewhat better. Gangadhara reads here as follows : — 



<< 



^rfaW: Sl^: ^rqffra^ fa<5 Wl 



v 



above 



