follow called _adhikara@nasiddhanta_; (4) those of the opponent's views
which are uncritically granted by a debater, who proceeds then to refute
the consequences that follow and thereby show his own special skill and
bring the opponent's intellect to disrepute (_abhyupagamasiddhanta_)
[Footnote ref 4]. The premisses are five:

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Here I have followed Vatsyayana's meaning.]

[Footnote 2: Vatsyayana comments here that when one finds all things full
of misery, he wishes to avoid misery, and finding birth to be associated
with pain becomes unattached and thus is emancipated.]

[Footnote 3: Vatsyayana wants to emphasise that there is no bliss in
salvation, but only cessation from pain.]

[Footnote 4: I have followed Vatsyayana's interpretation here.]

296

(1) _pratijna_ (the first enunciation of the thing to be proved);
(2) _hetu_ (the reason which establishes the conclusion on the
strength of the similarity of the case in hand with known examples
or negative instances); (3) _udahara@na_ (positive or negative
illustrative instances); (4) _upanaya_ (corroboration by the instance);
(5) _nigamana_ (to reach the conclusion which has been proved).
Then come the definitions of tarka, nir@naya, vada, jalpa, vita@n@da,
the fallacies (hetvabhasa), chala, jati, and nigrahasthana, which
have been enumerated in the first sutra.

The second book deals with the refutations of objections
against the means of right knowledge (pramana). In refutation
of certain objections against the possibility of the happening
of doubt, which held that doubt could not happen, since there
was always a difference between the two things regarding which
doubt arose, it is held that doubt arises when the special differentiating
characteristics between the two things are not noted.
Certain objectors, probably the Buddhists, are supposed to object
to the validity of the prama@na in general and particularly of
perceptions on the ground that if they were generated before
the sense-object contact, they could not be due to the latter,
and if they are produced after the sense-object contact, they
could not establish the nature of the objects, and if the two
happened together then there would be no notion of succession
in our cognitions. To this the Nyaya reply is that if there were
no means of right knowledge, then there would be no means of
knowledge by means of which the objec