Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
of objects about which it makes sense to say that they are produced and non-eternal and
second, to make sure that there is not even a single known object about which it makes
sense to say that it is produced and yet, eternal. The familiar instance Uddyotakara sug-
gests is 'a dish is produced and not eternal'. The acceptance of the said familiar instance
by all the disputants is a precondition for conducting the discussion. If a disputant disa-
grees that dishes are understood in habitual behaviors to be a kind of thing which is pro-
duced and non-eternal, this merely shows that he does not fully understand the meaning
of the concepts 'produced' and 'non-eternal', the very concepts the discussion is about. On
the other hand, if all the disputants agree that dishes are produced and non-eternal, the
existence of a group of objects which are produced and non-eternal is established. If the
disputants moreover fail to come up with an example of an object which is produced and
yet, is eternal, the relation of
avinabhāva
between production and non-eternality is estab-
lished. The only question left now is whether the
avinabhāva
relation between production
and non-eternality which pertains to dishes pertains also to sounds.
3.4
The Statement of the Application - 'Like Dishes, Sounds are also
Produced and are not Eternal'.
The question whether the
avinabhāva
relation between production and non-eternality
pertains to sounds can be answered by an appeal to the
upamāna-pramān
a
, the criterion
of analogical knowledge. The
upamāna
set one important condition: Two things are
similar if they perform the same role in the context of a certain habitual behavior. In our
particular case, dishes and sounds are similar if they are both produced, that is, if they
did not exist prior to a certain point of time and began to exist since that point of time.
Since sound is a kind of thing which does not exist prior to a certain point of time and
begins to exist since that point of time, sounds are similar to dishes in this respect. Like
dishes which are produced and not eternal, sounds are also produced and not eternal.
At this stage, anyone who is capable of inferring cannot resist accepting the con-
clusion that 'sound is not eternal', for the conditions necessary for inference are fully
met. It was demonstrated that the rules of the use of 'sound' in habitual behaviors de-
termine its meaning to be a kind of thing which is produced and non- eternal. The
deeply entrenched position that 'the sounds of the vedas are eternal' is shown to be
nonsensical when it is confronted with the meaning everyday habitual behaviors
assign to 'sound'. The said traditional and deeply entrenched position is shown to
employ the words 'sound' and 'eternality' contrary to the meaning determined to them
by everyday parlance.
3.5
The Statement of the Conclusion - 'Sound is not Eternal'
The same statement that was presented in stage one is presented again now as a con-
clusion. The truthfulness of the proposition is now known not only to its proponent
but also to the other disputants.
To conclude, the purpose of the logical model described above is to confront philo-
sophical arguments with everyday facts, i.e., with the meaning which everyday habi-
tual behaviors determine to the things which constitute human experience. The logical
