न्यायदर्शन में ऐसे उत्तर जो असत भी हो और असत को स्थापित करने हेतु ही प्रयोग किया गया हो उसे जाति कहते है।
Nyaydarshan teaches us how to arrive at correct conclusions and what pitfalls to avoid in the process. Now, in lots of situations, there would be actors who would make every attempt to deceive a truth seeker and establish falsehood as the truth or to hide/discredit the truth without even putting forward his own version as the truth.
To help the truth seeker against such deceivers, न्यायदर्शनकार has devoted the fifth chapter to highlight patterns these deceivers use.
These patterns range from arguments that are very efficiently projected as,
- logic leading to the truth,
- logic that appears to identify wrong conclusions (such patterns also help deceiver to project himself as torch bearer of truth),
- then there are patterns where the deceiver slowly drops pretence to be torch bearer of truth,
- and ultimately we also find arguments which are non-arguments - that can fool no one except only those most eager to accept them for purposes other than to reach the truth.
let's see them one by one. Depending on where these arguments are used, they are grouped under two categories. Hetvabhas and Jati.
हेत्वाभास: Attempts to prove something by incorrect reasonings are called hetvabhas.
जाति: When both parties are replying to each other's claims, any reply which is false AND by which person giving that reply is claiming victory over the other, i.e. his intention is to win the argument, not to seek the truth, is called Jati. In Nyaydarshan, the word Jati is defined as an reply which tries to make use of some irrelevant similarity/dissimilarity where no व्याप्ति exists, i.e. where sighted similarity/dissimilarity doesn't prove anything, to disprove the opposite party.
जाति, हेत्वाभास are used in discussions when the discussion isn't वाद (aim: arrive at truth) but is जल्प (aim: win the argument at any cost) or वितंडा (just destroy the counterparty's point without even having any own stance on the issue.)
Before we go into detail, a very important point. A journey to seek truth must not ever ban questioning, calls for greater clarity, objections to what may appear untruthful, attempts to prove a counterpoint - even if these questions, calls, objections, counterpoints turn out to be incorrect. As far as they are made with due care of being logical and do not contradict self-accepted principles, they are considered part of वाद. वाद leads to true conclusions with greater clarity and more detailed understanding and therefore questions, counterpoints, challenges cannot be banned.
One fallout of the above is, if an act of deceiving is designed carefully where its arguments can be mistaken by that of a truth seeker, pay-off to the deceiver becomes asymmetrical. If he succeeds in his attempt, he gains everything, if he loses, he loses nothing.
What is also however true is, for arguments to sound like coming from a truth seeker, they need to be of the standard of current environment's truth seekers arguments. i.e. you can't make an obviously absurd argument and pretend to be truth seeker. So better the society's knowledge level, more work for the deceiver to be in this category.
But then, not all societies at all times are knowledge societies, right? There are times when knowledge level has gone down and there are times when not many people are interested in arriving at truth.
So, let's say I want to deceive those who are almost eager to be fooled, would I put in all the effort to design high quality arguments that may potentially confuse even someone not fully ignorant and is a truth seeker? Obviously not. That would be wasted effort when I can achieve my goal with any low effort stupid argument as well. And who knows, I may even lose eyeballs while presenting more detailed, more logical sounding arguments when simple lies are more in demand.
So, at the other extreme of जातिप्रयोग, we can as well have वैतंडिक making most pathetic arguments while trying to disprove the truth.
साधर्म्यसमा, वैधर्म्यसमा जाति, are false arguments where the Jalpi tries to move away from the real defining feature (साध्य धर्म) and invokes presence/absence of some other broader feature and sights instance where that general feature is seen with different outcome. He then argues that therefore in this case too, presence/absence of it proves that claimed outcome is not possible.
Jati - outside of Nyaydarshan is the word used to denote some common underlying similarity of a set. Say मनुष्यजाति where everyone in this जाति is human but each one will have many other characteristics that are unique/may match with smaller subset of the humankind.
First two Jati here also uses some common underlying similarity/dissimilarity. Based on this, Gautam Rishi would have named the practice of giving misleading reply as जाति as sets are often named by its first/prime member (as in प्राण, उदान, व्यान, समान, अपान = पंच प्राण).
What if, some non-defining feature (i.e. साधकधर्म साध्यधर्म व्याप्ति रहित हेतु), is picked by any party to put forward its main claim itself instead of doing so while replying to the counterparty? In that case, it would be called hetvabhas-हेत्वाभास.
Use of example given is to add explanatory value. Here, instead of using the example given in its actual explanatory sense, Jalpi distorts the discussion with irrelevant details of example/incorrectly discredit the example saying things like,
- example given has xyz but thing being proven doesn't have it,
- example doesn't have xyz but the thing being proven has it,
- if you pick up that example, first prove that example to be true,
- example is wrong/inappropriate.
प्राप्यसमा, अप्राप्यसमा जाति
प्राप्यसमा is the infamous 'correlation is not causation' argument used when cause and effect show correlation in broad daylight but not many in target audience understand mechanism of action or this may even be used in conjunction with other Jatiprayog to hide/distort mechanism of action so that 'correlation is not causation' can be used.
अप्राप्यसमा is claiming that there is no correlation in first place when data points are more skilfully hidden/distorted.
These should be countered with sighting mechanism of action, attempts at hiding/distorting data etc.
Actually, it was this point onwards that I got really interested in this chapter. I was more or less following books till this point but was forced to switch to using own brain this point onwards. It was difficult at first, but once you see it, there is no way to unsee it.
प्राप्यसमा, अप्राप्यसमा Jati coverage in first iteration here,
https://nyaydarshannotes.blogspot.com/2022/08/5.1.7-8.html
प्रसङ्गसमा, दृष्टान्तसमा जाति
प्रसङ्गसमा
Trying to project a relatively simple system highly complex and then use that deceptively generated complexity to derail discussion is प्रसङ्गसमा Jati. Using the complexity pretext, Jativadi keeps challenging the base of Vadi's claim.
When Vadi answers Jativadi, Jativadi will challenge again the base on which that answer is given.
दृष्टान्तसमा
If a system is complex with lots of cross interacting variables, using one example to conclusively show how a particular variable affects the outcome becomes difficult/impossible. Now, when Vadi gives an example as part of his claim*, Jativadi picks up another example with same value of variable being discussed and different outcome to disprove Vadi's claim. i.e. Jativadi would try to establish simple relationship/lack of relationship between the variable-outcome by incorrectly simplifying actual complexity of the system.
*in Nyaydarshan, if one is trying to prove something, he is required to give an example while putting forward his claim.
We can see that प्रसङ्गसमा and दृष्टान्तसमा are mirror images of each other. i.e. When one of the sides is using either of this Jati, for an ignorant, it may indeed become difficult to understand if its Vadi vs प्रसङ्गसमा Jativadi or its Vadi vs दृष्टान्तसमा Jativadi. In other words, we are still in territory where Jativadi can project himself as Vadi.
Notes on प्रसङ्गसमा, दृष्टान्तसमा जाति in first iteration,
https://nyaydarshannotes.blogspot.com/2022/09/5.1.9-11.html
अनुत्पत्तिसम प्रतिषेध
'Cause didnt exist before effect became visible' argument.
Here, Jativadi tries to exploit lack of fixed temporal proximity between cause coming in existence and effect becoming visible.
Lets say A over the period of time leads to B. here, to disprove a correct claim like 'B has happened because of A', Jativadi argues that whatever is the cause of B, wasn't there before B happened (as in, if the cause existed earlier, B would have happened earlier.) but A was there before (and yet B didn't happen before), so A is not cause of B.
Notes on अनुत्पत्तिसम प्रतिषेध in first iteration,
https://nyaydarshannotes.blogspot.com/2022/09/5.1.12-13.html
संशयसम प्रतिषेध
'Noting special about your example' argument.
Jativadi argues that example given to prove a specific point has no special feature -its just like other instances of its class (when actually it does) and therefore it proves nothing specific.
Notes on संशयसम प्रतिषेध in first iteration,
https://nyaydarshannotes.blogspot.com/2022/09/5.1.14-15.html
प्रकरणसम प्रतिषेध
Jativadi opposes counterparty's claim and puts forward own different claim but then the argument he gives to oppose other's claim/prove own claim equally applies to both counterparty's claim and his own claim. in this case, even if Jativadi's argument is considered correct, it adds nothing to prove which of the two sides is correct but then he claims that by that argument he has disproved the opponent.
Notes on प्रकरणसम प्रतिषेध,
https://nyaydarshannotes.blogspot.com/2022/09/5.1.16-17.html
अहेतुसम प्रतिषेध
"This just happens without any cause at all" argument.
Jativadi argues that effect has no cause in past, present or future. It just happens.
Likely scenarios when Jativadi may resort to this Jati are when he doesnt want to fix accountability for the effect.
We have moved good distance from apparently logical arguments to non-arguments/illogical argument by now.
Detailed notes on अहेतुसम प्रतिषेध
https://nyaydarshannotes.blogspot.com/2022/09/5.1.18-20.html
अर्थापत्तिसमा जाति
Many times, it is possible to infer things which are not said by things which are said. But when wrong inferences are claimed from what is said, it is called अर्थापत्तिसमा जाति.
Detailed notes on अर्थापत्तिसमा along with discussion on why nonsensical arguments keep getting enough victims to stay alive.
https://nyaydarshannotes.blogspot.com/2022/09/5.1.21-22.html
अविशेषसम
"Everyone/Everything in a class should be considered equal" stance.
उपपत्तिसम
"You are right, but I am also right"
Detailed notes,
https://nyaydarshannotes.blogspot.com/2022/09/5.1.25-26.html
उपलब्धिसम
"There are cases when the effect is seen even when your claimed cause doesn't exist, so cause-effect claim is wrong" stance.
Jativadi is trying to utilise many-to-one relationship to disprove one of the causes here.
Detailed notes,
https://nyaydarshannotes.blogspot.com/2022/09/5.1.27-28.html
अनुपलब्धिसम
"If you can't show its absence, it proves it exists"
Detailed notes,
https://nyaydarshannotes.blogspot.com/2022/09/5.1.29-30.html