Difference between revisions of "Anumana pramana"
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
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 | ||
Revision as of 06:27, 22 March 2022
Anumana is inferential knowledge. It means cognition that follows previous knowledge. It involves predicting assumptions or postulations about unknown or lesser-known facts based on understanding previously established phenomena. It explores the past history regarding any subject predicting present status and the prognosis of any phenomena. Thus anumana provides the information applicable to all time frames. Preceded by direct perception (pratyaksha pramana), anumana can help in the logical reasoning of prospects of the subject. It enables the knowledge seeker to gain insights about the subject beyond perception. Anumana pramana explores the cause-effect relationship of known phenomena to postulate regarding the unknown phenomena. It can thus establish a correlation between effect and cause in retrospective and prospective studies.
| Section/Chapter/topic | Concepts/Pramana/Anumana pramana |
|---|---|
| Authors | Bhojani M. K. 1, Joglekar A. A.2 |
| Reviewer | Basisht G.3, |
| Editors | Deole Y.S.4 Basisht G.3 |
| Affiliations |
1 Department of Sharira Kriya, All India Institute of Ayurveda, New Delhi 2Department of Samhita Siddhant, All India Institute of Ayurveda, New Delhi 3 Charak Samhita Research, Training and Development Centre, I.T.R.A., Jamnagar, India 4 Department of Kayachikitsa, G.J.Patel Institute of Ayurvedic Studies and Research, New Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat, India |
| Correspondence emails |
meera.samhita@aiia.gov.in, carakasamhita@gmail.com |
| Date of first publication: | March 22, 2022 |
| DOI | under process |
Etymology and derivation
The word ‘anumana’ is derived from the Sanskrit verb “ma” meaning to know and prefixed by “anu” meaning following or coming after. Anumana is an act of inferring or drawing a conclusion from given premises.[Monniere Williams dictionary][1]
The word anumana (inferential cognition) denotes the process of anumitikarana (tool for inferential cognition) or prediction.[Shabdakalpadruma][2]
Anumana pramana is an instrument of obtaining inferential knowledge that arises from subject deduction. [Tarkasangraha] A deduction is ascertaining facts with respect to the invariable characteristics of the subject. It is defined as knowledge that is produced after direct perception [[[pratyaksha pramana]]].[3]
It can be referred to as obtaining knowledge of indirect objects after perception. [Gangadhar rai][4] Vaschaspatyam describes it as a resultant of knowledge of linga (characteristic mark) with the help of lingi (universally accepted characteristic).[5]
Definition
Anumana is a tool of obtaining knowledge preceded by pratyaksha pramana. It provides knowledge of the past, present, and future. For example, the presence of fire can be inferred on appearance of smoke; the copulation in past is inferred by witnessing pregnancy, and predicting the future tree after examining the seed. [Cha.Sa.Sutra Sthana 11/21-22)]
Anumana is the indirect inferential knowledge based on yukti i.e. reasoning, logic, and experiments. [Cha.Sa.Vimana Sthana 4/4]
Anumana is the reasoning supported by invariable concomitance such as the knowledge of agni (is examined) by the power of digestion; that of the strength of a person by analyzing the capacity to exercise, competency of auditory organ etc. by the ability of perception of sound, etc. [Cha.Sa.Vimana Sthana 8/40]
Anumana is accurate, clear, and establishes the relation between linga and lingi. [Dalhana on Su.Sa.Sutra Sthana 1/16][6]
Synonyms of Anumana
- Tarka [Cha.Sa.Vimana Sthana 8]
- Linga-grahya [Cha.Sa.Sharira Sthana 1/62]
- Paramarsha (Tarkasangraha)
Types
Three types based on chronological inference:
Based on the time frame of the knowledge obtained, anumana is of 3 types- past, present and future. [Nyaya philosophy,Chakrapani on Cha.Sa. Sutra Sthana 11/21-22]
1) Purvavataanumana (futuristic prediction): This is to predict about effect (karya) from the cause (karana). It is the inference of effect from cause (kaaranatkarya-anumana).
It refers to inferring to actions in the future. For instance, the production of future fruiting can be assumed by looking at the seed. This resembles to analysis of preliminary or rudimentary knowledge is done to gain information about future probabilities. The prediction of impending disease after examining the etiological factors can be done. For instance, the habit of pica (mrudbhakshana) indicates the occurrence of anaemia (pandu) disease in future. The premonitory features indicate future disease conditions.
2) Sheshavataanumana (inference of past history): This is to predict about cause (karana) from effect (karya). It is inference of cause from the effect (kaaryatkarana-anumana).
It refers to inferring the actions in the past. Here the visible effect is analyzed to obtain its possible cause. It resembles the analytic method of study where analysis of knowledge of the gross object is done to acquire the minutest details. For instance, the evidence of pregnancy infers the act of copulation done in the past. For example, the appearance of signs and symptoms of any disease refers to the past infection or inflammation.
3) Samanyatodrishta (general inference): It is inference regarding the knowledge by the generalization of concept or a common phenomena. Purvavataanumana represents future or antecedent knowledge, sheshavataanumana represents past or subsequent knowledge and samanyatodrishta explains present or analogous knowledge.
Three types based on methods of inference:
There are three other types of anumana based on the cause (hetu) as below. (Tarkasangraha)[7]
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][8] 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:[9]
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.[10]
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.[11]
Fallacies or limitation of inference (hetvabhasa)[11]
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
Page under construction
- ↑ MW Cologne Scan [Internet]. [cited 2022 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/csl-apidev/servepdf.php?dict=mw&page=0037
- ↑ SKD Cologne Scan [Internet]. [cited 2022 Feb 2]. Available from: https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/csl-apidev/servepdf.php?dict=SKD&page=1-050
- ↑ Annambhatta, Tarkasangraha with English translation, printed and published by Nirnaya Sagar press 1876, page no 24
- ↑ Jalpakalpataru, the complete text of Caraka Saṁhita, edited by Kaviraja Gangadhara with commentary (1880–81), Volume 1, Chapter 11/21-22 Second Edition, Calcutta Page no.514
- ↑ VCP Cologne Scan [Internet]. [cited 2022 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/csl-apidev/servepdf.php?dict=VCP&page=0181
- ↑ Sushruta. Sushruta Samhita. Edited by Jadavaji Trikamji Aacharya. 8th ed. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Orientalia;2005.
- ↑ Vishwanath panchanana, Nyaya siddhant muktavali, edited and published by Kshemraj Shrikrishnadas, 1958, page number 131-132
- ↑ Vagbhata. Ashtanga Hridayam. Edited by Harishastri Paradkar Vaidya. 1st ed. Varanasi: Krishnadas Academy;2000.
- ↑ L.P.Gupta , Essentials of Ayurveda , Chapter 5 , Nyaya system of philosophy , Anumana Pramana , reprinted 2013 , chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthana , Page No. 301
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Bhasapariccheda with siddhant muktavali, vishwanath nyaya panchanana, inference, the fallacies translated by swami madhavananda, published by advaita ashrama, mayavati, almora , page no. 129