2,062
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 94:
Line 94: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
There are three other types of anumana based on the cause ([[hetu]]) as below. (Tarkasangraha)<ref>Vishwanath panchanana, Nyaya siddhant muktavali, edited and published by Kshemraj Shrikrishnadas, 1958, page number 131-132</ref>
There are three other types of anumana based on the cause ([[hetu]]) as below. (Tarkasangraha)<ref>Vishwanath panchanana, Nyaya siddhant muktavali, edited and published by Kshemraj Shrikrishnadas, 1958, page number 131-132</ref>
1) Anvaya-vyatireki: It is joint method of agreement in presence and absence of causative factor. The invariable relationship exists between presence and absence of causative factor and phenomena. For example, if there is presence of pain (shoola), [[vata dosha]] is invariably responsible for it. Absence of [[vata dosha]] will in turn reflect the absence of pain. This is also observed in the manifestation of disease pathology. The continuous exposure to causative factors (nidana sevana) leads to continued pathogenesis and occurrence of disease. As soon as the treatment protocol including removal of causative factors is implemented , it leads to pacification.
2) Kevalanvayi: It is fixed affirmation or inherent relation between means and object. For instance, the [[agni]] and [[pitta dosha]] are affirmed or interrelated due to the presence of [[teja mahabhuta]] in both. The indispensable relation (ashraya-ashrayai bhava) between [[pitta dosha]] and [[rakta dhatu]] is an example of kevalanvayi. [A.Hr.Sutra Sthana.11/26-28]<ref name= Hridaya > Vagbhata. Ashtanga Hridayam. Edited by Harishastri Paradkar Vaidya. 1st ed. Varanasi: Krishnadas Academy;2000.</ref> Similarly the relationship between observation of pathognomonic signs of any disease reflect the presence of the particular disease. For instance the relation between increased body temperature (santapa) and fever ([[jwara]]).[Cha.Sa.[[Chikitsa Sthana]] 3/31]
3) Kevala-vyatireki: It is firm negation between the means and object. The [[prithvi mahabhuta]] will always be different from [[teja mahabuta]], non-concomitance (vyatirekavyapti) exists in both of these. This is observable in all the different physiological and anatomical entities as every structure is unique. The relation between [[vata dosha]] and [[asthi dhatu]] is indicative of kevala-vyatirekihetu.
'''Two types based on objectives:'''
Two types of anumana based on targeted recipients are described namely: swartha (for information of oneself) and parartha anumana (made for providing the information to other). (Tarkasangraha)
1. Swartha-anumana (personal inference): It is inference from one’s own perspective or predictions. It is private conclusion made by the examiner based on previous knowledge. It does not require to be explained to other. It is the process of recognition of characteristic sign leading to logical reasoning and inference (linga-paramarsha).
2. Parartha –anumana (demonstrative inference): It is inference made to explain the perspective or prediction to others. It is meant for demonstration of knowledge to others. In order to convey the inference to others the medium of five syllogisms (pacha-avayavivakya) is proposed. These are explained as a part of vaada-marga that enables an individual to convey or convince the opinion about any phenomena.[Cha.Sa.[[Vimana Sthana]] 8/34] These can be elaborated as follows-
a. Pratijna (proposition):
It is declaration or assertion of statement to be proved. It is the main subject or concern or argument.
b. Hetu (reason, tool or cause):
It is the tool, method or instrument to attain the knowledge or prove the phenomena. Pratyaksha, anumana, aitihya (aaptopadesha or testimony) and aupamya (analogy) are tools to obtain the rightful knowledge. [Cha.Sa. [[Vimana Sthana]] 8/35]
c. Udaharana or drishtanta (concomitance, example):
It denotes the concomitance or similarity of the observed phenomena with the existent knowledge. This generalizes the knowledge to both scholars and illiterate people equally. This knowledge is comprehensible to both the elite and ignorant recipient.
d. Upanaya (justification):
It compares, correlates initial proposition (pratijna) and established fact (drishtanta) to justify the activity. It is the application of general rule to the particular case. It is described under the heading of sthapana. [Cha. Sa. [[Vimana Sthana]] 8/31] It is the assumptive correlation to generalize a particular rule.
e. Nigamana (conclusion):
It is repetition of proposition or declaration. It involves the establishment of proposition with help of [[hetu]], drishtanta and upanaya.
Constituents of anumana pramana:<ref>L.P.Gupta , Essentials of Ayurveda , Chapter 5 , Nyaya system of philosophy , Anumana Pramana , reprinted 2013 , chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthana , Page No. 301</ref>
The example of fire and smoke is most commonly quoted to explain the anumana pramana. It denotes the understanding or assumption of presence of fire on the hill after witnessing the smoke on the hill. Thus the smoke marks as characteristic feature indicating the presence of fire. Thus the observer is entitled to make preposition of fire on hill based on the previous knowledge of the invariable relationship between smoke and fire. This invariable relationship between objective (sadhya) and cause ([[hetu]]) is termed as vyapti. It is instrumental in generating the deduction (paramarsha) to draw an inference or establishing the knowledge through anumana.<ref>Y.C.Mishra , Basic Principles of Padartha Vijnana , Chapter 13 , Anumana Pramana , edited by Dr. Jyotirmitra Acharya , reprinted 2012 , Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan , Varanasi.Page no.396</ref>
There are three constituents to form an inferential knowledge.
#Paksha (concerned subject or abode)
#Sadhya (objective)
#Linga (characteristic sign)
If the example of smoke on hill is considered, hill is denoted as paksha (minor term) as it is subject under consideration for inference. Fire is sadhya or major term which is supposed to be proved. Smoke is the [[linga]] i.e. middle term marking the characteristic sign indicating the presence of fire. This [[linga]] is termed as [[hetu]] or sadhana i.e. tool to derive the inference. Thus the three terms namely paksha, sadhya and [[linga]] are pivotal to derive inferential knowledge regarding any condition.
For instance, in the diagnosis of diseases, paksha is the patient or subject concerned. Sadhya is diagnosis the physician wants to make. [[Linga]] is the characteristic feature or symptomatology that helps in making the diagnosis. Thus the vyapti is the invariable unconditional concomitance between subject of concern and characteristic feature. For instance, the relation between the presence of heat and [[pitta dosha]] depicts the vyapti sambandha.<ref name=Bhasa>Bhasapariccheda with siddhant muktavali, vishwanath nyaya panchanana, inference, the fallacies translated by swami madhavananda, published by advaita ashrama, mayavati, almora , page no. 129</ref>
'''Fallacies or limitation of inference (hetvabhasa)'''<ref name=Bhasa/>
These are fallacies that make a [[hetu]] (reason or tool) to appear valid, when it is actually invalid. These can hinder the process of inference. Nyaya philosophy has explained 5 types of fallacies or hetvabhasa. These are savyabhichari (inappropriate reason), viruddhi (contradictory reason), satpratipaksha (inferentially contradicted middle term i.e. it is contradicted by inferential knowledge), asiddha (unproved or inconclusive [[hetu]]), badhita (non-inferentially contradicted middle term or absurd [[hetu]] i.e. it can be disproved by other [[pramana]] like pratyaksha etc.). These fallacies can make false interpretation and limits the knowledge through anumana.
== References ==
== References ==
Page under construction
Page under construction