After having specified the subject as flawless subject and clarified the conditions for something's being a flawless subject it is now necessary to specify the property of the subject, the
correct sign, through clarifying the conditions for something's being
the property of the subject, i.e. the sign's being established in relation to the subject, in the proof of {a subject} as {a predicate}.
For that purpose one can again refer to Roger's book and find Pur-bu-jok's definition of the conditions for something's being the property of the subject:
Quote:
{the subject} is a flawless subject sought to be known in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} by {the sign} and {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as only existing, in accordance with the mode of statement, with {the subject} in a manner of mutual difference with {the subject}
|
Here we will follow Rogers' analysis of Pur-bu-jok's definition considering the four key expressions:
1. 'mode of statement'
2. 'only existing with {the subject}'
3. 'mutual difference with the {the subject}'
4. 'ascertained by valid cognition'
-------------------------
1. 'mode of statement'
This expression refers to the two modes of statement of a syllogism:
a) copular mode, i.e. 'is' statements using 'to be'
b) ontological mode, i.e. 'exists' statements using 'to exist'
In the ontological mode the subject in all cases is a locus or location and the predicate of this locus actually is something the existence of which in this locus is asserted by the thesis.
-------------------------
Now that 'mode of statement' has been clarified it is possible to clarify ...
2. 'only existing with {the subject}'
... because it actually reads: 'only existing, in accordance with the mode of statement'
First, 'only existing with {the subject}' is different in meaning from 'existing only with {the subject}'. The position of 'only' is decisive here.
Second, in the copular mode the meaning of 'only existing with {the subject}' is 'each and every instance of {the subject} is {the sign} and {the sign} is with each and every instance of {the subject}'. This kind of mutual inclusion in case of the copular mode follows from the fact that the subject and the sign are of one entity. But they are not mutually inclusive in the sense that the sign can't be the property of different types of subjects too, because it can. This is because the sign is evidence for the predicate of the subject but there may be also different types of subjects that are the same predicate.
[We can also apply the wording of the ontological mode (s. below) here through regarding the entity of the subject as 'the locus' and the sign as property existing 'in' this 'entity locus'.]
Third, in the ontological mode the meaning of 'only existing with {the subject}' is 'each and every locus (= {the subject}) where {the sign} exists is a locus where {the predicate} exists too. Here the reverse is not applicable because {the sign} and {the predicate} are different entities and while {the sign's} existence is an effect of the {the predicate's} existence and when the effect exists its cause necessarily exists too, when a potential cause exists its potential effect does not necessarily exist too since a potential cause may always be obstructed.
-------------------------
3. 'mutual difference with the {the subject}'
In the context of ontological mode it is quite obvious that the sign and the subject are mutually different since they have a cause-effect relationship and therefore are different entities.
In the context of the copular mode however subject and sign are of one and the same entity. So what does 'mutual difference' mean?
It simply means different in name and meaning. Even if the sign is the property of the subject and both are of one entity the name of the subject and the name of the sign are different and so are their meanings.
With the requirement of mutual difference nonsensical syllogisms of the following kind are excluded:
{the subject} is {the predicate} because of being {the subject}
4. 'ascertained by valid cognition'
This requirement established the mutal dependency of being a flawless subject and being the property of the subject because in the definition of being a flawless subject acertainment of the subject being the sign is a condition and in the definition of being the property of the subject ascertainment of the sing as 'only existing, in accordance with the mode of statement, with {the subject}' is a condition.
So the subject's being a flawless subject and the sign's being the property of the subject are the base of any valid syllogism together with the serious desire of wanting to know whether the subject is {the predicate} or not.
Or - in the ontological mode:
So the subject's being a flawless subject (i.e. locus) and the sign's existence in the locus are the base of any valid syllogism together with the serious desire of wanting to know whether the subject (i.e. locus) is a locus where {the predicate} exists or not.
-------------------------
Now that the conditions for something's being property of the subject have been clarified which is one of the three essential conditions for a correct sign, the other two essential conditions, namely being the
forward pervasion and being the
counterpervasion, need to be elaborated on.
Just as the property of the subject has the flawless subject as basis of relation, so the two, the forward pervasions and the counterpervasions also have a basis of relation, namely the similar class and the dissimilar class, resp.
The similar class of the forward pervasions is the class of phenomena that share {the predicate} with the subject of the syllogism and the dissimilar class of the counterpervasions is the class of phenomena that do not share {the predicate} with the subject of the syllogism.
Establishing the forward pervasion
{the sign's} being the forward pervasion in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} is defined as follows:
{the sign} is the forward pervasion in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate} because:
(1) There exists a correct similar example that possesses both {the sign} and {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 existing, in accordance with the mode of statement, in only the similar 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 similar example
2. {the sign} is related with {the predicate}
3. {the sign} is ascertained by valid cognition as existing, in accordance with the mode of statement, in only the similar class in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate}.
3.1 {the sign} must exist in the similar class, in accordance with the mode of statement;
3.2 ... must exist in only the similar class;
3.3 ... must exist in only the similar class, as opposed to only existing in the similar class (the position of “only” is important);
3.4 ... must be ascertained as existent in only the similar class.
-------------------------
1. There exists a correct similar example
Copular mode:
An example in a proof is a correct similar example, if {the example} is the basis with respect to which one ascertains the pervasion (that whatever is {the sign} is necessarily {the predicate}) - prior to ascertaining on the basis of this pervasion that {the subject} is {the predicate} because of being {the sign}.
Ontological mode:
An example in a proof is a correct similar example, if {the sign's} existence in {the example} locus is the basis with respect to which one ascertains the pervasion (that wherever {the sign's} existence is observed there necessarily {the predicate's} existence can be observed too) - prior to ascertaining on the basis of this pervasion 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 existing, in accordance with the mode of statement, in only the similar class in the proof of {the subject} as {the predicate}.
3.1 {the sign} must exist in the similar class, in accordance with the mode of statement;
{the sign} must exist in the class of phenomena which are similar with respect to the {the predicate} to be proven. E.g. If {the predicate} to be proven is 'impermanent' then the name of the similar class is 'the impermanent'.
If the mode of statement in the syllogism is copular then {the sign} must be {the predicate}. If the mode of statement in the syllogism is ontological then {the sign} must exist in 'the {the predicate}'.
3.2 ... must exist in only the similar class;
If {the sign} is a correct sign then is must exist in only the similar class which means it must not exist also in the dissimilar class which is contradictory with the similar class.
3.3 ... must exist in only the similar class, as opposed to only existing in the similar class (the position of “only” is important);
Here the position of 'only' is not before 'exist' but before 'the similar class' which means that not all members of the similar class are necessarily {the sign} but whatever is {the sign} is necessarily a member of only the similar class.
3.4 ... must be ascertained as existent in only the similar class.
For a person who has doubt as to whether {the sign} exists only in the similar class or not {the sign} cannot be a correct sign since the forward pervasion is not established.
-------------------------
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.
-------------------------
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.
-------------------------
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.
-------------------------
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 in the beginning.