Right knowledge

[Ground]

Step 16 (following Step 15)

Now that the conditions for something's being the forward pervasion have been clarified the conditions for something's being the counterpervasions need to be elaborated on. The procedure parallels the elaboration on the forward pervasion approximately but not exactly.

The dissimilar class of the counterpervasion is the class of phenomena that not only does not share {the predicate} with the subject of the syllogism but the dissimilar class is contradictory with the similar class with respect to {the predicate}.


Establishing the counterpervasion

{the sign's} being the counterpervasion in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} is defined as follows:

{the sign} is the counterpervasion in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} because:
(1) There exists a correct dissimilar example which possesses neither {the sign} nor {the predicate} of the probandum, in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} by {the sign};
(2) {the sign} is related with {the predicate}; and
(3) {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as only nonexistent in the dissimilar class in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate}.

The following expressions will now be clarified to clarify this definition:

1. There exists a correct dissimilar example
2. {the sign} is related with {the predicate}
3. {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as only nonexistent in the dissimilar class in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate}.
3.1 {the sign} must be nonexistent in the dissimilar class;
3.2 ... must be only nonexistent in the dissimilar class;
3.3 ... must be only nonexistent in the dissimilar class, as opposed to being nonexistent in only the dissimilar class (the position of “only” is important);
3.4 ... must be ascertained as only nonexistent in the dissimilar class.

[Ground]

Step 17 (following Step 16)

1. There exists a correct dissimilar example

Copular mode:
An example in a proof is a correct dissimilar example, if {the example} is the basis with respect to which one ascertains the counterpervasion (that whatever is not {the predicate} is necessarily not {the sign}) - prior to ascertaining on the basis of this counterpervasion that {the subject} is {the predicate} because of being {the sign}.

Ontological mode:
An example in a proof is a correct dissimilar example, if {the predicate's} nonexistence in {the example} locus is the basis with respect to which one ascertains the counterpervasion (that wherever {the predicate's} existence cannot be observed there necessarily {the sign} does not exist) - prior to ascertaining on the basis of this counterpervasion that in the locus in question which is {the subject} {the predicate} exists because {the sign} exists [there].


2. {the sign} is related with {the predicate}

{the sign} is different from {the predicate} in name and meaning which is the prerequiste that {the sign} may be related with {the predicate}.


3. {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as only nonexistent in the dissimilar class in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate}.

3.1 {the sign} must be nonexistent in the dissimilar class;

{the sign} must not exist in the dissimilar class of phenomena which are dissimilar with respect to the {the predicate} to be proven. E.g. If {the predicate} to be proven is 'impermanent' then the name of the dissimilar class is 'the permanent'.

3.2 ... must be only nonexistent in the dissimilar class;

If {the sign} is a correct sign then is must be only nonexistent in the dissimilar class which means that none of the members of the dissimilar class of phenomena is {the sign} (copular) or in none of the members of the dissimilar class of locuses where {the predicate} cannot be observed does {the sign} exist (ontological).

3.3 ... must be only nonexistent in the dissimilar class, as opposed to being nonexistent in only the dissimilar class (the position of “only” is important);

Here the position of 'only' is not before 'the dissimilar class' but before 'nonexistent' which means - in copular mode - that all members of the dissimilar class are necessarily not {the sign} but that does not exclude that also some members of the similar class may be not {the sign}.

3.4 ... must be ascertained as only nonexistent in the dissimilar class.

For a person who has doubt as to whether {the sign} is only nonexistent in the dissimilar class or not {the sign} cannot be a correct sign since the counterpervasion is not established.

[Ground]

Step 18 (following Step 17)

To summarize: There are 3 essential valid ascertainments that are inevitable conditions for a syllogism's functioning as valid proof for an investigator:

1. The investigator has to ascertain that {the sign} is the property of {the subject}. The relationship to be established is one between {the subject} and {the sign}. The basis of relation is {the subject}.
2. The investigator has to ascertain that {the sign} is the forward pervasion. The relationship to be established is one between {the sign} and {the predicate}. The basis of relation is {the sign}.
3. The investigator has to ascertain that {the sign} is the counterpervasion. The relationship to be established is one between {the sign} and the opposite of {the predicate}. The basis of relation is {the sign}.

After establishing a strictly defined logical relationship between {the sign} and {the predicate} (-> items 2 and 3) - which means that if {the predicate} is eliminated {the sign} necessarily is eliminated, too - the mind must focus on the {the subject's} being {the sign} (item 1) to realize the thesis of the syllogism, i.e. that {the subject} is {the predicate}.

It is obvious that coming to validly know for oneself that the thesis of a syllogism is right cannot be achieved through casual reasoning but needs a certain level of concentration which is dynamic since the mind's focus is changing.

[Ground]

Step 19 (following Step 18)

The three modes of the sign of a syllogism have been covered.

Now let me recall:
I started with the Kalama sutta that does not provide any guidance how to come to validly know for oneself and therefore I referred to Dharmakirti's buddhist logic as a tool to come to validly know for oneself.
I followed Dharmakriti's treatise Nyayabindu only until the beginning of the 2nd chapter of his treatise (Step 8) after which I followed Rogers' elaboration on Pur-bu-jok's treatise which is based on Dharmakirti's buddhist logic. Why did I leave Wayman's translation of Dharmakirti's treatise after Step 8? It is because Dharmakirti's treatise is extremely terse and Wayman's translation of it is kept very close to the sanskrit original which makes it unsuitable to foster consistent understanding of the three modes.

In the following 'steps' about what are correct signs that may be used in syllogisms I will continue to follow Rogers' elaboration but use Dharmakirti's treatise as basis. That means if Rogers' elaborates on something which - although it is part of the tibetan curriculum - is not mentioned in Dharmakirti's Nyayabindu I will skip it.
In this way the 'steps' after Step 8 can be considered to be a selective abstract of Rogers' elaborations where what is selected is determined by Dharmakriti's treatise Nyayabindu.
But as previously stated Dharmakriti's treatise distinguishes 'inference for oneself' (2nd chapter) from 'inference for others' (3rd chapter) and what is relevant in this thread about coming to validly know for oneself is 'inference for oneself' only.

[Ground]

Step 20 (following Step 19).

Now to conclude this brief abstract about coming to validly know for oneself by means of buddhist logic there still remains the topic of categories of correct signs.

There are three 3 main categories of correct sigs:

1. Effect signs
2. Nature signs
3. Nonobservation signs

As to 1:
A correct effect sign is the three modes and the predicate of the syllogism is the sign's cause. So the sign is the effect which proves its cause. That means that predicate and sign are different entities.

Please note that the reverse is not valid: it is not possible to prove an effect by its cause as sign. Why? Because a potential cause always may be obstructed.


As to 2:
A correct nature sign is the three modes and the subject of the syllogism is both, the predicate and the sign. That means that predicate and sign are of one entity, i.e. two different properties of the subject.

As to 3:
A correct nonobservation sign is the three modes and the thesis of the syllogism is based on a negation of a predicate, e.g. 'is not {the predicate}' or '{the predicate} does not exist in ...' or '{the subject} is empty of {the predicate}' and the like.
There may be a several relationships between the nonobservation signs and the negative predicate:

3.1 Nonobservation of a Cause
Where a specific cause cannot be observed its effect must be absent too.

3.2. Nonobservation of a Pervader
Where a certain type of phenomena that contains the predicate cannot be observed the predicate must be absent too. E.g. where there are not trees, there are no oaks.

3.3 Nonobservation of a Nature
Where there is no valid perception of an object that object is absent. This is because perception of an object and existence of that object are equivalent in nature.

3.4 Correct Signs That Are an Observation of an Object That Is Contradictory in the Sense of Not Abiding Together
E.g. cold and fire do not abide together.

3.5 Correct Signs That Are an Observation of an Object That Is Contradictory in the Sense of Mutual Exclusion
I.e. although the objects may abide together they are mutually exclusive. E.g. although a car and a tree may abide together that which displays the characteristics of a car is not a tree.

----

If you are interested in more details about the topic please be referred to the literature mentioned.