1.2.17
Nyāya Sūtra / Adhyāya 1 / 1.2.17
अविशेषे वा किञ्चित्साधर्म्यादेकच्छलप्रसङ्गः
aviśeṣe vā kiñcitsādharmyād ekacchalaprasaṅgaḥ
The line
Or, if there were no difference, a mere partial likeness would bring the consequence that there is only one quibble.
नेपालीमा
वा फरक नभए आंशिक सादृश्य मात्रले एउटै छल हुने परिणाम ल्याउँथ्यो।
Where it sits
aviśeṣa (अविशेष) is taken from the objector's aviśeṣāt (अविशेषात्) in 1.2.15. The three chalāni (छलानि) of 1.2.11 are in force as what would collapse. The reply of 1.2.16 still stands beside this second ground.
Split: aviśeṣe (अविशेषे) + vā (वा) + kiñcit-sādharmyāt (किञ्चित्-साधर्म्यात्) + eka-chala-prasaṅgaḥ (एक-छल-प्रसङ्गः)
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| aviśeṣe (अविशेषे) | locative singular, masculine | if there is no difference |
| vā (वा) | indeclinable | or rather, on the other hand |
| kiñcit-sādharmyāt (किञ्चित्-साधर्म्यात्) | ablative singular, neuter | from some likeness |
| eka-chala-prasaṅgaḥ (एक-छल-प्रसङ्गः) | nominative singular, masculine | the consequence that quibble would be only one |
The phrases
vā (वा) continues the reply. Suppose one grants the objector's aviśeṣa (अविशेष). Then a small sādharmya (साधर्म्य), any partial likeness, would be enough to collapse kinds.
The unwanted result is ekachala. All quibbles would be one quibble. The three kinds of 1.2.11 would not survive, nor would any later distinction that rests on a shared feature. That prasaṅga (प्रसङ्ग) is the reason the objection fails.
Sanskrit in this line
prasaṅga (प्रसङ्ग) is an unwanted consequence that follows. The locative aviśeṣe (अविशेषे) states the supposition. sādharmyāt (साधर्म्यात्) before eka is recited sādharmyād (साधर्म्याद्). kiñcit (किञ्चित्) is indeclinable here, 'a little'.
Say it back
Say the cost of the objection: ekacchalaprasaṅga (एकच्छलप्रसङ्ग) from kiñcitsādharmya (किञ्चित्साधर्म्य).
Next
1.2.18. A futile rejoinder is an opposing stand made through likeness or through unlikeness.