[INDOLOGY] Nyaya discussions on faulty examples

[Piotr Balcerowicz]

If I understand correctly, what you actually mean is dṛṣṭāntābhāsa? If so, in the Nyāyabhāṣya (NBh), the issue is conflated with hetvābhāsa – see NBh 1.1.37. However, it is discussed separately in the Nyāya-vārttika. 

Outside of the Nyāya tradition, you have Buddhist Śaṅkarasvāmin’s Nyāya-praveśa definisions and typologies: 


3.3. dṣṭāntābhāso dvividhaḥ: sādharmyeṇa vaidharmyeṇa ca // 

3.3.1. tatra sādharmyeṇa tāvad dṣṭāntābhāsaḥ pañca-prakāraḥ, tad yathā: /1/ sādhana-dharmāsiddhaḥ, /2/ sādhya-dharmāsiddhaḥ, /3/ ubhaya-dharmāsiddhaḥ, /4/ ananvayaḥ, /5/ viparītānvayaś cêti // tatra 
[1] sādhana-dharmāsiddho yathā: nityaḥ śabdo ’mūrtatvāt paramāṇuvat. yad amūrtaṁ tan nityaṁ dṣṭaṁ yathā paramāṇuḥ. paramāṇau hi sādhyaṁ nityatvam asti sādhana-dharmo ’mūrtatvaṁ nāsti mūrtatvāt paramāṇūnām iti // 
[2] sādhya-dharmāsiddho yathā: nityaḥ śabdo ’mūrtatvād buddhivat. yad amūrtaṁ tan nityaṁ dṣṭaṁ yathā buddhiḥ // buddhau hi sādhana-dharmo ’mūrtatvam asti sādhya-dharmo nityatvaṁ nāsti. anityatvād buddher iti // 
[3] ubhayāsiddho dvi-vidhaḥ. sann asaṁś cêti. tatra ghaṭavad iti vidyamānṁbhayāsiddhaḥ. anityatvān mūrtatvāc ca ghaṭasya. ākāśavad ity avidyamānṁbhayāsiddhah. tad-asattva-vādinaṁ prati // 
[4] ananvayo yatra vinānvayena sādhya-sādhanayoḥ saha-bhāvaḥ pradarśyate. yathā ghaṭe ktakatvam anityatvam ca dṣṭam iti // 
[5] viparītānvayo yathā: yat ktakaṁ tad anityaṁ dṣṭam iti vaktavye yad anityaṁ tad ktakaṁ dṣṭam iti bravīti // 

3.3.2. vaidharmyeṇāpi dṣṭāntābhāsaḥ pañca-prakāraḥ, tad yathā: /1/ sādhyāvyāvttaḥ, /2/ sādhanāvyāvttaḥ, /3/ ubhayāvyāvttaḥ, /4/ avyatirekaḥ, /5/ viparīta-vyatirekaś cêti // tatra 
[1] sādhyāvyāvtto yathā: nityaḥ śabdo ’mūrtatvāt paramāṇuvat. yad anityaṁ tan mūrtaṁ dṣṭaṁ yathā paramāṇuḥ. paramāṇor hi sādhana-dharmo ’mūrtatvaṁ vyāvttaṁ mūrtatvāt paramāṇūnām iti. sādhya-dharmo nityatvaṁ na vyāvttaṁ nityatvāt paramāṇūnām iti // 
[2]sādhanāvyāvtto yathā: karmavad iti. karmaṇaḥ sādhyaṁ nityatvaṁ vyāvttam. anityatvāt karmaṇaḥ. sādhana-dharmo ’mūrtatvaṁ na vyāvttam. amūrtatvāt karmaṇaḥ // 
[3] ubhayāvyāvttaḥ. ākāśavad iti. tat sattva-vādinaṁ prati. tato nityatvam amūrtatvaṁ na ca vyāvttam. nityatvād amūrtatvāc cākāśasyêti // 
[4] avyatireko yatra vinā sādhya-sādhana-nivttyā tad-vipakṣa-bhāvo nidarśyate. yathā ghaṭe mūrtatvam anityatvaṁ ca dṣṭam iti // 
[5] viparīta-vyatireko yathā: yad anityaṁ tan mūrtaṁ dṣṭam iti vaktavye yan mūrtaṁ tad anityaṁ dṣṭam iti bravīti // 

See also Dharmakīrti’s Nyāyabindu etc., but also Jaina tradition. As regards the typologies of fallacious, you may see my paper: 
"Implications of the Buddhist-Jaina dispute over the fallacious example in Nyaya-bindu and Nyayavatara-vivrtti", in: Peter Flügel (ed.): Studies in Jaina History and Culture, Routledge Advances in Jaina Studies, Routledge, London–New York 2006: 117–153. 
http://www.orient.uw.edu.pl/balcerowicz/indology/balcerowicz2006a.pdf

Best,
Piotr Balcerowicz
--------------------------------
www.orient.uw.edu.pl/balcerowicz


>From : 	Joseph Walser <Joseph.Walser at tufts.edu>
Subject : 	[INDOLOGY] Nyaya discussions on faulty examples
To : 	indology at list.indology.info
	
Wed, 02 Sep, 2015 16:19
Can anyone out there point me toward Nyaya discussions of ways in which an example can be faulty? Secondary sources often state(without attribution as far as I can tell) that the example must be held in common by both sides of the debate, but I cannot find any discussion of that specific point in either the Nyaya Sutras of in Vatsyayana's commentary (unless I am overlooking something). Surely with so much attention being paid to faults in the reason and in the thesis, there should be some discussion of either unshared examples or of examples in which it is doubtful that they even exist (".... like a unicorn").
Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
-j
Joseph Walser
Associate Professor
Department of Religion
Tufts University