from [15] the pratij~naa  reasoning through the [16]
　　   hetu to [17] the d.r.s.taanta, and the opposing side
　　   of  the  triangle  would  represent   the  deduction
　　   beginning with [17] the d.r.s.taanta to [18] upanaya
　　   and inferring the nigamana.

　　　　  The French  Indologist  Rene Guenon pointed  out
　　   that  after  the appearance  of the  Nyaaya  Suutra,
　　   there  were two abridged  forms of the five-membered
　　   syllogism, (10) in  which  either  the  first  three
　　   [15-17] or the  last  three  [17-19] parts  appeared
　　   alone.  Gutnon  also  pointed  out that  the  latter
　　   abridgment resembles the syllogism of Aristolle; the
　　   former  abridgment, of course, is precisely  the one
　　   found in the 6th century  Nyaayaprave`sa  and indeed
　　   the same smoke-fire example occurs there also. Given
　　   the  interpretation   I  have  offered,  it  is  not
　　   surprising  that there should be two abridgments  of
　　   the five-membered syllogism. One abridgment captures
　　   the  retroductive  move;  the  second  captures  the
　　   deductive  move.   Deduction  and  retroduction  are
　　   inversions of one another, and they can be separated
　　   by positioning  the  property-locus  statement.  One
　　   abridgment  reasons from the thesis statement  to an
　　   explanatory  generalization;  the  other  abridgment
　　   deduces  the  thesis  from  the generalization.  The
　　   Buddhist  logicians  Mere quite emphatic about which
　　   abridgment they favored. The Nyaaya quite explicitly
　　   says, "We say that these three  statements  make the
　　   members   of  the  syllogism   and  no  more!  "(11)
　　   Tachikwa's gloss on this statement indicates that it
　　   is  an assertion  that  only  three  statements  are
　　   necessary  for an inference.

　　　　  We may conclude that what "inference"  primarily
　　   meant to the Buddhist logicians was "reasoning to an
　　   explanatory causal hypothesis"; however, it would be
　　   wrong   to  further   conclude   that  they  had  no
　　   appreciation of the

　　　　　　　　　　　　  P.187

　　   deductive  abridgment.  To them logic was a means  of
　　   bringing  others  to  a  recognition   of  particular
　　   statements;  it was  an upaaya, a heuristic  teaching
　　   device.　　 The   retroductive   abridgment   of   the
　　   five-membered  syllogism clearly teaches in the sence
　　   that it brings the hearer to an awareness of a causal
　　   or conceptual  connection.  The deductive  abridgment