Charak Samhita

siva.sh/caraka-samhita/vimana-sthana/8/57

अथाहेतुः- अहेतुर्नामप्रकरणसमः, संशयसमः, वर्ण्यसमश्चेति| तत्रप्रकरणसमोनामाहेतुर्यथा- अन्यःशरीरादात्मानित्यइति; परोब्रूयात्- यस्मादन्यःशरीरादात्मा, तस्मान्नित्यः; शरीरंह्यनित्यमतोविधर्मिणाचात्मनाभवितव्यमित्येषचाहेतुः; नहियएवपक्षःसएवहेतुरिति| संशयसमोनामाहेतुर्यएवसंशयहेतुःसएवसंशयच्छेदहेतुः; यथा- अयमायुर्वेदैकदेशमाह, किन्न्वयंचिकित्सकःस्यान्नवेतिसंशयेपरोब्रूयात्- यस्मादयमायुर्वेदैकदेशमाहतस्माच्चिकित्सकोऽयमिति, नचसंशयच्छेदहेतुंविशेषयति, एषचाहेतुः; नहियएवसंशयहेतुः, सएवसंशयच्छेदहेतुर्भवति| वर्ण्यसमोनामाहेतुः- योहेतुर्वर्ण्याविशिष्टः; यथा- कश्चिद्बूयात्- अस्पर्शत्वाद्बुद्धिरनित्याशब्दवदिति; अत्रवर्ण्यःशब्दोबुद्धिरपिवर्ण्या, तदुभयवर्ण्याविशिष्टत्वाद्वर्ण्यसमोऽप्यहेतुः ||५७||

sanskrit

[36. Ahetu (fallacious reason)] Ahetu is of three types – prakaranasamah, samshayasamaḥ, varnyasama. Prakaranasama ahetu is like saying – ‘the atma (soul) other than the body is eternal.’ On this opponent says that ‘because the self is other than the body, it is eternal, then as the body is non-eternal the dissimilar self must be eternal. This is ahetu (fallacious reason) because here the paksha (minor term) itself has been used as reason. Samshayasama ahetu the reason similar to doubt is that which though being cause of doubt is used as cause of eliminating the same such as, if someone says only a part of Ayurveda , it creates doubt as to whether he is a physician or not; On this opponent says – ‘as he has said a part of Ayurveda, he is a physician.’ The doubt can not be the cause of removing the same. Varnyasam ahetu- the reason (hetu) given is similar to object and not different from the object, such as somebody says – buddhi (intellect) is non-eternal because of the absence of touch like shabda (sound). Here both buddhi (intellect) and shabda (sound) are objects; hence because of the absence of difference between them, the reason is similar to object and as such is fallacious.

english translation

athAhetuH- aheturnAmaprakaraNasamaH, saMzayasamaH, varNyasamazceti| tatraprakaraNasamonAmAheturyathA- anyaHzarIrAdAtmAnityaiti; parobrUyAt- yasmAdanyaHzarIrAdAtmA, tasmAnnityaH; zarIraMhyanityamatovidharmiNAcAtmanAbhavitavyamityeSacAhetuH; nahiyaevapakSaHsaevaheturiti| saMzayasamonAmAheturyaevasaMzayahetuHsaevasaMzayacchedahetuH; yathA- ayamAyurvedaikadezamAha, kinnvayaMcikitsakaHsyAnnavetisaMzayeparobrUyAt- yasmAdayamAyurvedaikadezamAhatasmAccikitsako'yamiti, nacasaMzayacchedahetuMvizeSayati, eSacAhetuH; nahiyaevasaMzayahetuH, saevasaMzayacchedaheturbhavati| varNyasamonAmAhetuH- yoheturvarNyAviziSTaH; yathA- kazcidbUyAt- asparzatvAdbuddhiranityAzabdavaditi; atravarNyaHzabdobuddhirapivarNyA, tadubhayavarNyAviziSTatvAdvarNyasamo'pyahetuH ||57||

hk transliteration

siva.sh/caraka-samhita/vimana-sthana/8/57

अथाहेतुः- अहेतुर्नामप्रकरणसमः, संशयसमः, वर्ण्यसमश्चेति| तत्रप्रकरणसमोनामाहेतुर्यथा- अन्यःशरीरादात्मानित्यइति; परोब्रूयात्- यस्मादन्यःशरीरादात्मा, तस्मान्नित्यः; शरीरंह्यनित्यमतोविधर्मिणाचात्मनाभवितव्यमित्येषचाहेतुः; नहियएवपक्षःसएवहेतुरिति| संशयसमोनामाहेतुर्यएवसंशयहेतुःसएवसंशयच्छेदहेतुः; यथा- अयमायुर्वेदैकदेशमाह, किन्न्वयंचिकित्सकःस्यान्नवेतिसंशयेपरोब्रूयात्- यस्मादयमायुर्वेदैकदेशमाहतस्माच्चिकित्सकोऽयमिति, नचसंशयच्छेदहेतुंविशेषयति, एषचाहेतुः; नहियएवसंशयहेतुः, सएवसंशयच्छेदहेतुर्भवति| वर्ण्यसमोनामाहेतुः- योहेतुर्वर्ण्याविशिष्टः; यथा- कश्चिद्बूयात्- अस्पर्शत्वाद्बुद्धिरनित्याशब्दवदिति; अत्रवर्ण्यःशब्दोबुद्धिरपिवर्ण्या, तदुभयवर्ण्याविशिष्टत्वाद्वर्ण्यसमोऽप्यहेतुः ||५७||

sanskrit

[36. Ahetu (fallacious reason)] Ahetu is of three types – prakaranasamah, samshayasamaḥ, varnyasama. Prakaranasama ahetu is like saying – ‘the atma (soul) other than the body is eternal.’ On this opponent says that ‘because the self is other than the body, it is eternal, then as the body is non-eternal the dissimilar self must be eternal. This is ahetu (fallacious reason) because here the paksha (minor term) itself has been used as reason. Samshayasama ahetu the reason similar to doubt is that which though being cause of doubt is used as cause of eliminating the same such as, if someone says only a part of Ayurveda , it creates doubt as to whether he is a physician or not; On this opponent says – ‘as he has said a part of Ayurveda, he is a physician.’ The doubt can not be the cause of removing the same. Varnyasam ahetu- the reason (hetu) given is similar to object and not different from the object, such as somebody says – buddhi (intellect) is non-eternal because of the absence of touch like shabda (sound). Here both buddhi (intellect) and shabda (sound) are objects; hence because of the absence of difference between them, the reason is similar to object and as such is fallacious.

english translation

athAhetuH- aheturnAmaprakaraNasamaH, saMzayasamaH, varNyasamazceti| tatraprakaraNasamonAmAheturyathA- anyaHzarIrAdAtmAnityaiti; parobrUyAt- yasmAdanyaHzarIrAdAtmA, tasmAnnityaH; zarIraMhyanityamatovidharmiNAcAtmanAbhavitavyamityeSacAhetuH; nahiyaevapakSaHsaevaheturiti| saMzayasamonAmAheturyaevasaMzayahetuHsaevasaMzayacchedahetuH; yathA- ayamAyurvedaikadezamAha, kinnvayaMcikitsakaHsyAnnavetisaMzayeparobrUyAt- yasmAdayamAyurvedaikadezamAhatasmAccikitsako'yamiti, nacasaMzayacchedahetuMvizeSayati, eSacAhetuH; nahiyaevasaMzayahetuH, saevasaMzayacchedaheturbhavati| varNyasamonAmAhetuH- yoheturvarNyAviziSTaH; yathA- kazcidbUyAt- asparzatvAdbuddhiranityAzabdavaditi; atravarNyaHzabdobuddhirapivarNyA, tadubhayavarNyAviziSTatvAdvarNyasamo'pyahetuH ||57||

hk transliteration