Text 116

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Text 116:

द्विविधं निदर्शनं साधर्म्येण वैधर्म्येण च । तत्रानुमेयसामान्येन लिङ्गसामान्यस्यानुविधानदर्शनं साधर्म्यनिदर्शनम् । तद्यथा यत् क्रियावत् तद् द्रव्यं दृष्टं यथा शर इति । अनुमेयविपर्यये च लिङ्गस्याभावदर्शनं वैधर्म्यनिदर्शनम् । तद्यथा यद् अद्रव्यं तत् क्रियावन् न भवति यथा सत्तेति ॥ ११६ ॥

dvividhaṃ nidarśanaṃ sādharmyeṇa vaidharmyeṇa ca | tatrānumeyasāmānyena liṅgasāmānyasyānuvidhānadarśanaṃ sādharmyanidarśanam | tadyathā yat kriyāvat tad dravyaṃ dṛṣṭaṃ yathā śara iti | anumeyaviparyaye ca liṅgasyābhāvadarśanaṃ vaidharmyanidarśanam | tadyathā yad adravyaṃ tat kriyāvan na bhavati yathā satteti || 116 ||

Text (116): The Nidarśana, Instance, is of two kinds—that which corroborates by similarity or affirmation, and that which corroborates by dissimilarity or negation. The former kind consists in the recognition of the concomitance of the ‘indicative mark’ in general, with the ‘subject’ in general. E.g. (in the argument cited before) we have the statement—‘that which has action or motion has always been found to be a substance, as an arrow.’ The other kind of Instance consists in the recognition of the absence of the ‘indicative mark’ wherever there is absence of the ‘subject;’ e.g. (in the same argument) the statement—‘anything that is not a substance has no motion, as Being.’

Commentary: The Nyāyakandalī of Śrīdhara.

(English rendering of Śrīdhara’s commentary called Nyāyakandalī or Nyāyakaṇḍalī from the 10th century)

The author now proceeds to explain the character of ‘Instance.’ The Instance is of two kinds, &c. That statement which points out the concomitance of the Reason with the Subject of the Inference is the Instance corroborating by affirmation; whereas the statement indicating the absence of the Reason from everywhere where there is absence of the subject, is the Instance corroborating by negation; herein lies the difference between the two kinds of Instance. The rest is quite clear.