Chapter 4.3.4 - Navya Nyaya (d): Five parts of syllogism

The five member of syllogism are: pratijna, hetu, udaharana, upnayah and nigamanam.

a) The Pratijna (Proposition):

It is the sentence that causes knowledge whose object is the same as that of the conclusion and which contributes to the production of the entire knowledge which produces consideration. E.g. the hill is full of fire. Gangesha rejects the definition of Gautama which states pratijna as the sentence that signifies the things that is sought to be established and gives his definition which reads: Uddeshyanumiticaramakaranalingaparamarsha Prayojakavakyarthajnanajanakatve sati uddeshyanumityanyunanatiriktha vishayaka sabadajnanajanaka vakyatvam.”

Further he has explained it in two other ways; (a) hetvabhid hanaprayojaka jijnasa janakavakyatvam’ meaning that the sentences which give rise to the desire to know the ground on the basis of which something is predicated of, with reference to the subject of inference and which thereby leads one to use the sentence that consists of the ground of inference is the pratijnavakya. (b) lingavisayaka-lingivisayaka jnanajanakavakyavam. Lingi refers to the thing that is sought to be established (sadhya); lingavisayakam on the other hand refers to that which has for its substantive feature the one that possesses the sadhya. The sentence that gives rise to the verbal cognition which does not involve reference to the ground of inference and which has for its substantive feature the one that is possessed of the thing that is sought to be established in the pratijnavakya.

b) The Hetu (Reason or middle term)

It is a word which produces knowledge whose object is not the probandum (major term) but which contribute to the production of the entire knowledge that gives rise to consideration. E.g. because it is full of smoke.

There are two kinds of reason; anvayi (affirmative) and vyatireka (negative). The former is a member which produces knowledge that necessitates the mention of the member expressive of an affirmative invariable concomitance e.g. because it has smoke, all that has smoke has fire as a kitchen. The latter is that which produces knowledge that necessitates the mention of the member expressive of a negative invariable concomitance e.g. because it has smoke, all that has no fire has no smoke as a lake.

Hetu unless and until is unconditional, it cannot be in invariable concomitance with the major. A condition is that which constantly accompanies the major term, but does not always accompany the middle term, e.g. the hill is full of smoke, because it is full of fire. Smoke is the major term and fire the middle term and wet fuel a condition. The wet fuel constantly follows smoke but does not always accompany fire.

Accompanying here refers to the state of not being the counterpart of that absolute non-existence which abides in the locus of the major term that is the state of not being absent from the locus of the major term.

Condition can be of ‘sure’ or ‘suspected.’ The former refers to a situation when one is sure of constant accompanying the major term but does not always accompany the middle term. Suspected is the situation in which there is doubt regarding accompaniment.

Some of the other explanations given to Hetu by Gangesha are:

• Hetutvapratipadakavibhaktimannyavavayavatvam
• Udaharanaprayojaka…………..akamksajanakasabdajnanajnaka
• Nyayavayavatvam
• Sadhyavisayakajnanajanakapamcamyantanumitiparashabdatvam Pratijnavakyadhijanyakaranakamksanivartakajnana
• janakahetuvibhaktimadvakyatvam
• Pamcamyantalakshanika padavad anumiti paravakyatvam.

After the rise of the knowledge from the hetu-vakya that dhuma is the ground on the basis of which fire is sought to be established, there arises the expectancy as to whether the ground of inference is invariably related to the thing that is sought to be established in the subject of inference.

c) Udaharanam (Example)

It is a word which while producing knowledge of connection of the form that the locus of the middle term is constantly occupied by the major term causes another knowledge which proceeds from the sentence expressive of consideration e.g. all that has smoke has fire as a kitchen.

It is defined as—

‘anumitihetulimgaparamarshaparavakyajanyajnanajanaka. vyapyatvabhimatavannishthaniyatavyapakatvabhimata sambandhabodhajanaka shabdatvam udaharanatvam’

d) Upanayah (Application)

It is that member which produces consideration. For instance, all that has smoke has fire, this hill too has smoke. Upanaya vakya is the sentence that gives rise to the knowledge that the subject of inference has the hetu that is invariably related to the sadhya. The subsumptive reflection which is the ultimate cause of inferential cognition cannot come out of the earlier three members of syllogism which makes this avayava (member) of syllogism significant.

e) Nigamanam (Conclusion)

It is the sentence which while causing the knowledge gives rise to consideration, produces knowledge of the major term as indicated by that of the middle term through its invariable concomitance with the major term and its nature of abiding in the minor term. E.g. In this hill there is smoke, which is in invariable concomitance with fire. Therefore in this hill there is fire or therefore this hill is full of fire.

Even though the knowledge of invariable relation between the hetu and the sadhya and also the knowledge of the presence of hetu in the subject of inference arise from the first four avayavas of syllogism, yet the knowledge that the hetu is not contradicted and also not counterbalanced can be arrived at only from the nigamana-vakya and not from the other four avayavas of syllogism making it inevitable in Anumana.