Page 1 :
1|Page, , Hetvabhas (Fallacies of Inference),  In Indian logic a fallacy is known as hetvabhasa.,  This fallacy means, the middle term appears to be a reason but is not a valid reason.,  In Western logic fallacies are formal in nature.,  But the Naiyayikas hold that the logical forms of inference are the same for all valid, inferences.,  A fallacy relates to material condition of an inference. So all fallacies are material, fallacies.,  There are five characteristics of a valid term. When these characteristics are violated,, fallacies arise.,  The term fallacy is associated with reasoning.,  In Indian logic a fallacy is known as hetvâbhâsa. This fallacy means, the middle term, appears to be a reason but is not a valid reason.,  In Western logic fallacies are formal in nature. But the Naiyayikas hold that the, logical forms of inference are the same for all valid inferences.,  A fallacy relates to material condition of an inference. So all fallacies are material, fallacies. Lets further understand the Term Hetvâbhâsa by breaking it in 2, components:,  Hetu means "Reason".,  Abhas means "Glimpse".,  A fallacy is called Hetvabhasa.,  It means HETU or reason appears to be real but in fact it is not., , [Type here]

Page 2 :
2|Page, , Five characteristics of a middle term, It must be present in the minor term (pakadharmata); e.g., smoke must be present, in the hill., It must be present in positive instances in which the major term is present,; e.g.,, smoke must be present in the kitchen where fire exists (sapakasattva)., It must be absent in all negative instances in which the major term is absent; smoke, must be absent in the lake in which fire does not exist (vipakasattva)., It must be non-incompatible with the major term; e. g., it must not prove the, coolness of fire (abadhita)., It must be qualified by the absence of counteracting reasons which lead to a, contradictory conclusion; e.g., 'the fact of being caused' should not be used to prove, the 'eternality' of sound, (aviruddha)., There are five characteristics of a valid term. When these characteristics are, violated, fallacies arise., 1. Pakadharmata- Hetu must be present in the minor term., 2. Sapakasattva - Hetu must be present in the positive instances in which the major, term is present., 3. Vipakasattva- Hetu must be absent in all the negative instances in which the major, term is absent., 4. Abadhita5. Aviruddha-, , Hetu must be non- incompatible with the major term., Hetu must be qualified by the absence of counteracting reasons, , which lead to a contradictory reason., , [Type here]

Page 3 :
3|Page, , Violation of the above characteristics leads to the following fallacies., 1. Savya Bhichara (Deviation), 2. Viruddha (Contradictory), 3.Satpratipaka (Having an antithesis), 4.Asiddha (Not proved), 5. Badhita (opposed by another strong pramana), , 1. SavyaBhichara (Deviation/Irregular Middle )-When the middle term is not, invariably related to the major term, the conclusion is likely to be false., 2. Viruddha (Contradictory Middle)- When the middle term is not related to the, major term but to its contradictory, the fallacy arises., 3. Asiddha (Unproved Middle)--When the conclusion can be contradicted by another, middle term justifying the opposite of the conclusion, this fallacy arises., 4. Satpratipaka (Inferentially Contradicted Middle)--This fallacy arise when the, middle term has not been proved in the premises such a fallacy take place., 5. Badhita (Non Inferentially Contradicted Middle--When the conclusion brought, out by the middle term is disapproved by the other pramana, this fallacy arise., , 1. Assiddha or Sadhyasama: This is the fallacy of unproved middle., 2. Savyabhicara: This is the fallacy of irregular middle., 3. Satpratipaksa: Here, the middle term is contradicted by another middle term., 4. Badhita: It is the non-inferentially contradicted middle., 5. Viruddha: It is the contradictory middle., , [Type here]

Page 4 :
4|Page, , 1. Savyabhichara or the fallacy of irregular middle: A middle term may be irregularly, related to the major term., When the middle is not uniformly related to the major term then that is called, savyabhicara hetu.,  Let us take the following example,,  All bipeds are rational.,  Swans are bipeds.,  Therefore, swans are rational.,  Here, the middle term is 'biped'. But it is not uniformly related to the major term, 'rational'.,  The middle term in this example may be related to both rational and non rational, creatures. Therefore, it is a defective hetu., 2) Viruddha or the contradictory middle: The viruddha hetu or the contradictory, middle is that hetu, which though offered to establish the existence of the sadhya, actually establishes the non-existence of the sadhya;,  e.g. 'sound is eternal, because it is produced'- here, the middle term 'produced', does not prove the eternality of sound, but proves its non-eternality.,  Here, the middle term itself disproves the original proposition and proves its, contradictory., 3) Satpratipaka or the inferentially contradicted middle: When a hetu which is, advanced to establish a particular sadhya in an inference is validly contradicted by an, another hetu which proves the non-existence of the sadhya of the first inference, the, fallacy of satpratipaka arises.,  In this case the first hetu is called satpratipaka hetu.,  For example,,  'sound is eternal, because it is audible' is validly contradicted by another, inference 'sound is non-eternal, because it is produced like a pot.',  Here, the middle term of the first inference, 'audible' is contradicted by the middle, term of the second inference 'produced., , [Type here]

Page 5 :
5|Page, , 4) Asiddha or the unproved middle: The asiddha hetu is one which is not yet proved,, but requires to be proved, like the sadhya.,  This means that the asiddha hetu is not a proved or an established fact, but an, asiddha or unproved assumption.,  Let us take an example,,  'Skylotus is fragrant, because it has lotusness in it like a natural lotus'. The, middle term of the argument is yet to be proved, because we are yet to establish the, existence of Skylotus., 5) Badhita hetu or the non-inferentially contradicted middle:,  The middle term of an inference may be contradicted by some other 'stronger, 'means of knowing, such as perception, testimony etc.,  It cannot prove the major term which is disproved by another stronger source of, valid knowledge, e. g.,,  'fire is cold, because it is a substance'.,  Here the middle term 'substance' becomes contradicted because its major term, 'coldness' is directly contradicted by perception., , Formal and Informal fallacies, A formal fallacy, is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical, structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system.,  It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid.,  The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion.,  Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a, logical process.,  However, this may not affect the truth of the conclusion since validity and truth are, separate in formal logic., [Type here]

Page 6 :
6|Page, ,  An informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical, form of the argument.,  A deductive argument containing an informal fallacy may be formally valid, but still, remain rationally unpersuasive.,  Nevertheless, informal fallacies apply to both deductive and non-deductive, arguments., Though the form of the argument may be relevant, fallacies of this type are the "types, of mistakes in reasoning that arise from the mishandling of the content of the, propositions constituting the argument"., , [Type here]

Page 7 :
7|Page, , TYPES OF FALLACIES, , 1.Ad Hominem - Ad hominem is Latin for "against the man.",  Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, ad hominems replace logical, argumentation with attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter.,  Ad hominems are a fallacy of relevance where someone rejects or criticizes another, person's view on the basis of personal characteristics, background, physical, appearance, or other features irrelevant to the argument at issue., Definition:, • Marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to, the argument made., • Attacks the person arguing, rather than their actual argument., Examples,  You failed 3rd grade, so your argument is invalid.,  You can't go to law school, your dad is a criminal., Example, That face cream can't be good. Kim Kardashian is selling it., , 2. Straw Man - In the straw man fallacy, someone attacks a position the opponent, doesn't really hold., Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she instead attacks the equivalent, of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never, intended upon defending anyway.,  Straw man fallacies are a cheap and easy way to make one's composition look, stronger than it is., [Type here]

Page 8 :
8|Page, ,  Using this fallacy, opposing views are characterized as "non starters," lifeless, truth, less, and wholly unreliable.,  By comparison, one's own position will look better for it., Example,  President Trump doesn't have middle class Americans in mind. He's part of the, upper echelon of America., , 3. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam),  These fallacies occur when someone asserts a claim that must be accepted because, no one else can prove otherwise.,  Any time ignorance is used as a major premise in support of an argument, it's liable, to be a fallacious appeal to ignorance.,  If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered FALSE and, must be considered TRUE,  Argumentum ad ignorantiam,  Absence of evidence=evidence of absence,  Used to shift the burden of proof in debate,  If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered TRUE and must, be considered FALSE,  False dichotomy (false dilemma),  Inductive reasoning,  Ignorance isn't proof of anything except that one doesn't know something.,  If no one has proven the non-existence of ghosts or flying saucers, that's hardly, proof that those things either exist or don't exist. If we don't know whether they, exist, then we don't know that they do exist or that they don't exist.,  Ignorance doesn't prove any claim to knowledge., Example, People have been praying to God for years., No one can prove He doesn't exist. Therefore, He exists., [Type here]

Page 9 :
9|Page, ,  Appeal to ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), (in which ignorance, stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), it asserts that a proposition is true, because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa), Example:,  "Scientist have not found any concrete evidence of aliens visiting Earth. Therefore,, anyone who claims to have seen a UFO must be hallucinating.,  Analysis: We identify the premises and conclusion of argument as follows,  Premise: There's no proof that aliens have visited Earth.,  . Conclusion: Aliens have not visited Earth, The Fallacy should be clear: A Lack of proof of alien visits does not mean that visits, have not accured. This fallacy is called appeal to ignorance., , 4. False Dilemma/False Dichotomy, This fallacy has a few other names:,  "black-and-white fallacy,",  "either-or fallacy,",  "false dichotomy," and,  "bifurcation fallacy.",  This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more, options to choose from.,  Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the other thing, or both things, together (they don't exclude each other).,  Sometimes there are a whole range of options, three, four, five, or a hundred and, forty-five.,  However it may happen, the false dichotomy fallacy errs by oversimplifying the, range of options., , [Type here]

Page 10 :
10 | P a g e, ,  Dilemma-based arguments are only fallacious when, in fact, there are more than, the stated options.,  Example,  In Latin America, only two countries offer travel and tourism options: Mexico and, Guatemala., False Dilemma (misuse of "or"),  A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more, options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.,  Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this, fallacy, • Examples:, • You're either for me or against me., • America: Love it or leave it., • If you ain't a Gator, you're Gator bait (this one's true)., , 5. Slippery Slope, • The slippery slope fallacy works by moving from a seemingly benign premise or, starting point and working through a number of small steps to an improbable, extreme., • This fallacy is not just a long series of causes., • Some causal chains are perfectly reasonable., • There could be a complicated series of causes which are all related, and we have, good reason for expecting the first cause to generate the last outcome., • The slippery slope fallacy, however, suggests that unlikely or ridiculous outcomes, are likely when there's just not enough evidence to think so., Example, • If we teach Tanmay how to drive the car, he'll want to learn how to fly helicopters, next!, , [Type here]

Page 11 :
11 | P a g e, , 6. Circular Argument (petition principii),  When a person's argument is just repeating what they already assumed, beforehand, it's not arriving at any new conclusion.,  We call this a circular argument or circular reasoning. Circular arguments are also, called Petitio principii meaning "Assuming the initial thing" (commonly, mistranslated as "begging the question")., Example, • If someone says, "the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true"-that's a circular, argument., • One is assuming that the Bible only speaks truth, and so they trust it to truthfully, report that it speaks the truth., • Another example of circular reasoning is, "According to my brain, my brain is, reliable.", , 7. Hasty Generalization Hasty generalizations are general statements without sufficient evidence to, support them.,  They are general claims too hastily made, hence they commit some sort of illicit, assumption, stereotyping, unwarranted conclusion, overstatement, or, exaggeration.,  Hasty generalization may be the most common logical fallacy because there's no, single agreed-upon measure for "sufficient" evidence., Example, • Some teenagers in our community recently vandalized the park downtown., Teenagers are so irresponsible and destructive., , 8. Red Herring (ignoratio elenchi), • A "red herring" is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment, that seems to be relevant but isn't really on-topic., • Typically, the distraction sounds relevant but isn't quite on-topic., , [Type here]

Page 12 :
12 | P a g e, , • This tactic is common when someone doesn't like the current topic and wants to, detour into something else instead, something easier or safer to address., • In literature, a red herring is an argument or subject that is introduced to divert, attention from the real issue or problem. ... Examples of Red Herring:, 1. When your mom gets your phone bill and you have gone over the limit, you begin, talking to her about how hard your math class is and how well you did on a test today.,  A red herring is usually emotionally charged in order to pull away the participant, from the topic on hand.,  It is irritating because it leaves the opponent completely unable to prove his point,  The red herring is basically used to distract the audience, hence, lead them astray, form the topic and eventually abandon their argument.,  These fallacies occur when someone uses irrelevant information to distract from, the argument., Example, There are starving children in Africa. Eat your carrots., , 9. TuQuoque Fallacy,  The "tuquoque," Latin for "you too," is also called the "appeal to hypocrisy" because, it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent.,  This tactic doesn't solve the problem, or prove one's out hypocrisy in the opponent.,  This tactic doesn't solve the problem, or prove one's point, because even hypocrites, can tell the truth. Focusing on the other person's hypocrisy is a diversionary tactic.,  . Tu quoque Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends, to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act, consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).,  In this way, the tuquoque typically deflects criticism away from one's self by accusing, the other person of the same problem or something comparable.,  Example-"But, Dad, I know you smoked when you were my age, so how can you, tell me not to do it?", [Type here]

Page 13 :
13 | P a g e, , 10. The Causal Fallacy/False Cause,  Is any logical breakdown when identifying a cause. You can think of the Causal, Fallacy as a parent category for several different fallacies about unproven causes.,  One causal fallacy is the False Cause ornon causapro causa("not the-cause for a, cause") fallacy, which is when you conclude about a cause without enough evidence, to do so.,  Example-"Since your parents named you 'Harvest,' they must be farmers.",  It's possible that the parents are farmers, but that name alone is not enough evidence, to draw that conclusion. That name doesn't tell us much of anything about the, parents. This claim commits the False Cause Fallacy.,  Jimmy isn't at school today. He must be on a family trip., , 11. Fallacy of Sunk Costs "Sunk cost" is an economic term for any past, expenses that can no longer be recovered.,  Sometimes we invest ourselves so thoroughly in a project that we're reluctant to ever, abandon it, even when it turns out to be fruitless and futile.,  It's natural, and usually not a fallacy to want to carry on with something we find, important, not least because of all the resources we've put into it., Example, "I know this relationship isn't working anymore and that we're both miserable. No, marriage. No kids. No steady job. But I've been with him for seven years, so I'd better, stay with him.",  However, this kind of thinking becomes a fallacy when we start to think that We, should continue with a task or project because of all that we've put into it, without, considering the future costs we're likely to incur by doing so.,  There may be a sense of accomplishment when finishing, and the project might have, other values, but it's not enough to justify the cost invested in it., , [Type here]

Page 14 :
14 | P a g e, , 12. Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam),  This fallacy happens when we misuse an authority.,  This misuse of authority can occur in a number of ways. We can cite only authorities, steering conveniently away from other testable and concrete evidence as if expert, opinion is always correct. Or we can cite irrelevant authorities, poor authorities, or, false authorities.,  Example Consider the following examples. How do these statements mishandle, authorities?,  . 1: "Because Martin Sheen played the president on television, he'd probably make a, great president in real life.",  2: "One day robots will enslave us all. It's true. My computer science teacher says, so.",  3: "This internet news site said that the candidate punches babies. We know that's, true because it's on the internet.",  Like many of the other fallacies in this list, The argumentum ad, verecundiam("argument from respect") can be hard to spot. It's tough to see,, sometimes, because its normally a good responsible move to cite relevant authorities, supporting your claim. It can't hurt.,  But if all you have are authorities, and everyone just has to "take their word for it", without any other evidence to show that those authorities are correct, well then you, have a problem.,  These fallacies occur when someone accepts a truth on blind faith just because, someone they admire said it.,  Example-Katherine loves Tom Cruise. One day, she meets Tom Cruise and he tells, her unicorns live in New York City. Without day, she meets Tom Cruise and he tells, her unicorns live in New York City. Without searching to find out if fairy tales have, sprung to life in the midtown Manhattan, she believes it to be true., , [Type here]

Page 15 :
15 | P a g e, , 13. Equivocation (ambiguity),  Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to, confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it's saying one thing but actually saying, something else.,  Equivocation comes from the roots "equal" and "voice" and refers to two-voices; a, single word can "say" two different things. Another word for this is ambiguity.,  Example- replacing "fired from my job" with "early retirement.,  When these replacement words are used to mislead people they become an, equivocation fallacy.,  Example 1: "His political party wants to spend your precious tax dollars on big, government. But my political party is planning strategic federal investment in critical, programs.",  Example 2: "I don't understand why you're saying I broke a promise. I said I'd never, speak again to my ex-girlfriend. And I didn't. I just sent her some pictures and text, messages.", , [Type here]

Page 16 :
16 | P a g e, , 14. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam),  a fallacy of relevance. Personal attacks, and emotional appeals, aren't strictly relevant, to whether something is true or false.,  In this case, the fallacy appeals to the compassion and emotional sensitivity of others, when case, the fallacy appeals to the compassion and emotional sensitivity of others, when these factors are not strictly relevant to the argument. Appeals to pity often, appear as emotional manipulation.,  Example -"How can you eat that innocent little potato? He was plucked from his, home in the ground at a young age, and violently skinned, chemically treated, and, packaged, and shipped to your local grocer and now you are going to eat him into, oblivion when he did nothing to you. You really should reconsider what you put, into your body.", • These fallacies occur when someone seeks to gain acceptance by pointing out an, unfortunate consequence that befalls them.,  If we don't adopt that puppy today, they might put him down. Do you want to be, responsible for that?, Argument from "pity", Example,  "He should not be punished because he is just a little child.",  "Heinz should not be imprisoned for stealing because he did that for his dying wife.",  "The druggist should have not overpriced the drug because it can cur man people, who are suffering.",  "Please hire me because I have eight mouths to feed.', , 15. Bandwagon Fallacy,  The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right, or good) because other, people agree with it.,  These fallacies occur when a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because, many people believe it to be so., , [Type here]

Page 17 :
17 | P a g e, , Example,  Everyone on campus is wearing Adidas. I need to buy those sneakers.,  All my friends are doing a keto diet. That must be the only way to lose weight., , [Type here]

Page 18 :
18 | P a g e, , 16.Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum),  In the appeal to force, someone in a position of power threatens to bring down, unfortunate consequences upon anyone who dares to disagree with a proffered, proposition.,  Although it is rarely developed so explicitly, a fallacy of this type might propose:,  If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of F for this, course.com,  I believe that Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States., Therefore, Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.,  It should be clear that even if all of the premises were true, the conclusion could, nevertheless be false.,  Since that is possible, arguments of this form are plainly invalid. While this might be, an effective way to get you to agree (or at least to pretend to agree) with my position,, it offers no grounds for believing it to be true., , Pramanas,  Knowledge can be termed as Prama (Valid) and Aprama (Invalid).,  The concept Pramana is derived from the Sanskrit root, Prama which means, "correct notion, true knowledge, basis, foundation, accurate notion",  Hence Pramana is valid means of knowledge.,  Pramana literally means "proof" and "means of knowledge".,  It is a theory of knowledge, and encompasses one or more reliable and valid means, by which human beings gain accurate and true knowledge., This world features four basic constituents stated as, 1. Pramata, the knower, 2. Prameya, the knowables,, 3. Pramana, the process of knowing, and,, 4. Pramiti, the knowledge achieved by the pramana., [Type here]

Page 19 :
19 | P a g e, ,  All worldly entities must fall either under the category of,  Prameya, the knowables or,  Pramana, the process of knowing;,  In fact while we speak or even think about the process of knowing, pramana also, happens to fall under the character of Prameya.,  As per Vedas philosophy, pramana are six in numbers., Types of Pramanas, 1. Perception (Pratyakşa), 2. Inference (Anumana), 3. Comparison and analogy (Upamana), 4. Postulation derivation from circumstances (Arthapatti), 5. Non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (Anupalabdhi), 6. Word, testimony of past or present reliable experts (Sabda)., , The Nyaya epistemology considers,  knowledge( jñāna) or cognition (buddhi) as apprehension (upalabdhi) or, consciousness (anubhava).,  Knowledge may be valid or invalid.,  The Naiyayikas (the Nyaya scholars) accepted four valid means (pramana), of obtaining valid knowledge (prama)  perception (pratyaksa),,  inference (anumāna),,  comparison (upamāna) and,  verbal testimony (sabda)., , , , , , , Invalid knowledge includes, memory (smrti),, doubt (samsaya),, error (viparyaya) and, hypothetical reasoning (tarka)., , [Type here]

Page 20 :
20 | P a g e, , 1.Perception (Pratyaksa),  Perception is something which is right in front of our eyes. Perception is defined, by sense object contact and is unerring (always right or accurate.).,  It is the first Pramana that enables a person to have correct cognition of the, world. It is to be noted perception in English has a different meaning which is, from point of view of someone.,  In Indian philosophy, perception, the first of the five means of knowledge, or, Pramanas, enable a person to have a correct understanding of the world., , Pratyaksha is of two kinds:,  Direct perception (anubhava),  Remembered perception (smriti), Perception can be broadly classified as two types., •1. Ordinary (Laukika or Sädhārana), • 2. Extra-ordinary (Alaukika or Asādhārana), , [Type here]

Page 21 :
21 | P a g e, , Ordinary (Laukika or Sadharana Pratyaksha),  It means having direct interaction of worldly object with our senses (any of the 5, senses). Laukik Pratyaksha can be further classified as below:, This can be divided into:, • External-when your five senses interact with the world outside, • Internal-perception of inner sense or the mind, External Perception, Perceived through five senses (Sensory Perception), 1. Visual perception by the eyes., 2. Olfactory perception by the nose., 3. Auditory perception by the ears., 4. Tactile perception by the skin., 5. Taste perception by the tongue., 6. Mental awareness., , Internal Perception,  Inner sense, the mind,  Cognitive Perception,  Feeling like: depressed, hungry, tired etc.,  The 'external' perception implies cognition of sense objects, namely -sound, touch,, form, taste and smell by our five sense organs (ears, skin, eyes, tongue and nose).,  When the sense organs contact their respective objects then the Pratyaksha, knowledge takes place.,  The 'internal' perception means the direct & immediate cognition of pain, pleasure,, love, hate, anger, knowledge or ignorance of various objects etc. in & by our minds.,  The Acharyas elaborately reveal that in any direct perception, the awareness existing, at the level of mind of the person desirous to know an object, as though flows out, through his respective sense organ and envelops the available & illumined object., [Type here]

Page 22 :
22 | P a g e, ,  In all direct perception the knowledge is extremely clear but its scope is very limited.,  What we can directly see not only constitutes an extremely small iota of the wide, spectrum of things existing in this universe, but many a times that which is directly, cognized is far from truth., , Extra-ordinary (Alaukika or Asadharana Pratyaksha), • It means having indirect interaction of worldly object. Alaukika or Asadharana, Pratyaksha can be further classified as below, Alaukik Pratyaksha (Extra Ordinary Perception),  Samanya Lakshna--Perceiving generality from a particular object.,  Jnana Lakshna--When one sense organ can also perceive qualities not attributable, to it.,  Yogaj--When certain human beings, through the power of Yoga, can perceive past,, present and future and have complete or partial supernatural abilities., , Ordinary (Laukika or Sadharana Pratyaksha), 1. Visual, 2. Olfactory, 3. Auditory, 4. Tactile, 5. Taste, 6. Mental, Extra-ordinary (Alaukika or Asadharana Pratyaksha), 1. Samanya Lakshna, 2. Jnana Lakshna, 3. Yogaj, , [Type here]

Page 23 :
23 | P a g e, , CONCEPT OF PERCEPTION WITH STAGES, • According to Nyaya, perception or Pratyaksha is considered to be the first source, of knowledge or pramana., • Perception is a definite or true cognition of objects produced by sense-object, contact., • For example, the perception of the black book in front of me is possible due to, contact that occurs between my eyes and the object, the black book., • According to Gautama, perception means non-erroneous cognition, which is, produced by the inter-course of the sense organs with the objects., , [Type here]

Page 24 :
24 | P a g e, , Six different kinds of Laukika or ordinary perceptions,  Visual perception (Cakshusha),  Auditory perception (Srautra),  Tactual perception (Sparsha),  Gustatory perception (Rasana),  Olfactory perception (Ghranaja),  Internal perception or mental perception (Manasa), , Stages of Perception, • According to Nyaya school, there are two stages of perception, namely,, 1. Indeterminate, 2. Determinate perception., • Indeterminate is also called Nirvikalpa when one just perceives an object without, being able to know its features., • Determinate perception is also called Savikalpa when one is able to clearly know an, object., • These are different in thought only not in reality., Indeterminate or Nirvikalpa perception, • It deals with bare sensation or simple apprehension of the object., • In other words, it is the stage of bare awareness where the object is presented, without any characterization., • It is psychological in nature but its knowledge is logical in nature., • Nyaya says, it is undifferentiated and non-relational in nature., • As a result, it is free from assimilation, discrimination, analysis and synthesis., • According to Nyaya, we sense this perception and due to which indeterminate, perception is inferred into perceptual judgement., • In other words, it is the result of logical deduction., , [Type here]

Page 25 :
25 | P a g e, , Determinate perception or Savikalpa perception, • This perception is determinate and relational in nature., • It deals with assimilation, discrimination,analysis and synthesis., • It is representational in nature. Here, the perception is characterized, in other words,, all the attributes, like, name, genus, etc., • are understood., • We feel this perception., , TWO STAGES OF PERCEPTION, Indeterminate or Nirvikalpa perception,  First stage of Perception,  Psychological in nature but its knowledge is logical in nature.,  The perception is inferred as well.,  Free from assimilation, discrimination,, analysis and synthesis., Determinate perception or Savikalpa perception,  Second stage,  This perception can be felt.,  It deals with assimilation, discrimination, analysis and synthesis.,  It is important to note that these are not the two different kinds of perception.,  Actually these are the two stages of perception.,  In other words, indeterminate or Nirvikalpa is the former stage of perception and, determinate or Savikalpa is the latter stage of perception.,  These two can only be distinguished or divided in thought and not in reality., , [Type here]

Page 26 :
26 | P a g e, , • The ancient and medieval Indian texts identify four requirements for correct, perception:,  Indriyarthasannikarsa (direct experience by one's sensory organ(s) with the object,, whatever is being studied),  Avyapadesya (non-verbal; correct perception is not through hearsay, according to, ancient Indian scholars, where one's sensory organ relies on accepting or rejecting, someone else's perception),,  Avyabhicara (does not wander; correct perception does not change, nor is it the, result of deception because one's sensory organ or means of observation is drifting,, defective, suspect) and,  Vyavasayatmaka ) (definite; correct perception excludes judgments of doubt,, either because of one's failure to observe all the details, or because one is mixing, inference with observation and observing what one wants to observe, or not, observing what one does not want to observe).,  Some ancient scholars proposed "unusual perception" as pramana and called it, internal perception, a proposal contested by other Indian scholars.,  The internal perception concepts included Pratibha (intuition),,  Further, some schools of Hinduism considered and refined rules of accepting, uncertain knowledge from Pratyakşa-pranama, so as to contrast nirnaya (definite, judgment, conclusion) from anadhyavasaya (indefinite judgment).,  Direct sensory perception is also referred to as anubhava (meaning experience).,  Indirect perception creates knowledge based on memory (Smriti). Once we have, known what an apple looks like, this gets feed into our memory or stock of, knowledge., , [Type here]

Page 27 :
27 | P a g e, , Inference (Anumana),  Anumana is second source of valid knowledge (pramana).,  Anumâna is a mediate and indirect source of knowledge.,  Anumana literally means 'later knowledge'.,  Anumana is defined as the knowledge of an object (lingi) due to previous knowledge, of some sign or mark (linga).,  Anumana (Inference) is described as reaching a new conclusion and truth from one, or more observations and previous truths by applying reason. It can be further, broken down to understand as:,  Anu means "After",  Mana means "Knowledge",  Etymologically the word 'Anumana' indicates after knowledge (anu-after, manaknowledge).,  It is the second source of valid knowledge.,  It is different from 'Pratyaksha,' because Pratyaksha is a direct and immediate source, of knowledge.,  The term anumana literally means 'after-knowledge', i.e., knowledge that follows, other knowledge. Inference is defined as the knowledge of an object (lingi) due to a, previous knowledge of some sign or mark (linga),  Literally translated the word anumana means 'knowing after'.,  It means the method by which knowledge is derived from another knowledge. It is, an indirect, mediate knowledge.,  We have knowledge of an invariable relationship between two things and on that, basis while seeing one we deduce the presence the other. Thus anumana refers to, the logical process of gaining knowledge.,  In all inferential knowledge there are definite steps to be followed.,  The following steps are accepted for logical deduction of knowledge by the teachers, of Advaita Vedanta :,  a. Perceptual evidence - We see smoke on the hill,  b. Invariable concomitance - Wherever there is smoke there is fire, as seen in, kitchen.,  c. Conclusion--Therefore the hill has fire, [Type here]

Page 28 :
28 | P a g e, ,  Gautama defines it as a specific form of knowledge preceded by perception.,  The perception of the invariable relation between the proban (linga) and the, probandum (lingi) is a previous perception of such a relation somewhere else.,  Again, the perception of the proban is invariably related to probandum as it exists, in the locus.,  Hence Anumana means knowledge based on prior knowledge.,  Excluding Charvaka School of Philosophy, all major school of philosophies, accept Anumana pramana.,  Let us understand some major terms with the help of below example from Nyaya, School of Philosophy:, , If we see smoke in a hill we conclude that there must be fire., Smoke- Middle term-Hetu, Hill- Minor Term-Paksa, Major Term- fire- sadhya, Classification of Anumana, Anumana is broadly classified in 3 major categories:, 1. Psychological Classification of Inference, 2. Classification based on the Nature of Vyapti, 3. Classification based on Induction, Psychological, 1. 'Swartha Anumana', 2. 'Pararth Anumana', Nature of Vyapti, 1. Purvavat Inference, 2. Sesavat Inference, 3. Samanyato Drista, , [Type here]

Page 29 :
29 | P a g e, , Induction, 1. Kevalânvayi inference, 2. Kevalâvyatireki inference, 3. Anvayavyatireki inference:, 1. Psycological Classification of Inference can be broken as,  'Swartha Anumana',  'Pararth Anumana', A.) Svarth Anumana: If a person wants to infer something for himself, it is called, svârth Anumâna., Therefore, it is defined as an inference for one's own conviction., Example: A person who perceives a patch of smoke remembers that there is a, universal relation between smoke and fire and finally infers that there is fire in the hill., B.) Pararth Anumana: An inference is said to be Pararth Anumâna when an inference, is done in order to convince others. This inference is done when someone, after, inferring for himself fire from smoke expresses it in five-membered syllogism to carry, his conviction to another., • Svârth Anumâna- If a person wants to infer something for himself, it is called svårth, anumana. Therefore, it is defined as an inference for one's own conviction. A person, who perceives a patch of smoke remembers that there is a universal relation between, smoke and fire and finally infers that there is fire in the hill., • Pararth anumana - An inference is said to be Pararth anumana when an inference is, done in order to convince others. This inference is done when someone, after inferring, for himself fire from smoke expresses it in five- membered syllogism to carry his, conviction to another., , [Type here]

Page 30 :
30 | P a g e, , • In order to convince one's own self either the first three propositions or the last three, propositions of the Pranayama Nyâya is sufficient., • On the other hand, all the five propositions of pancavayava Nyâya are necessary in, order to convince others., 1. It is to be noted here that the division of inference into svârtha and parârtha is not, mentioned in the sutras of Gautama and Kanada., 2. It was first observed by Prasastapâda in the Bhâsya on the Vaiúeika sutra., Let us understand with a typical Nyaya syllogism Illustration:, 2. Classification on the Basis of Nature of Vyapti, • Gautama (Nyaya Darshana)- Purvavat, Sheshavat and Samanyatodrushta., A.) Purvavat inference:, Where the effect is inferred from cause,  E.g.: from a specific height, density etc. (precisely Unati) of clouds (one infers that), it will be raining.,  . Rain is inferred from clouds., B.) Sesavat inference:, Where cause is inferred from effect from the fullness of river that has excess water,, which is distinct from old water and high speed of current it had been raining before., • E.g.: Effect: fullness of river and excess water is caused by rain, C.) Samanyato Drista inference:, Can be termed as 'Generally what it looks like' It has been observed that something, changes its position due to movement (vrajya), E.g.: The sun too (changes its position) Therefore, the sun too has movement, although, the movement has not seen., , [Type here]

Page 31 :
31 | P a g e, , According to another interpretation,  A Purvavat inference is based on previous experience of universal concomitance, between two things,,  A sesavat is inference by elimination,,  A sâmânyatodta is inference by analogy., According to Acharya Charaka-Atita, Anagata and Vartamanakalina., 1. Atita Kala- (inference of effect from cause) When one sees a pregnant lady, he, infers the past sexual intercourse (Past event)., 2. Anagata Kala - (inference of cause from effect) When one see a seed inferring a, fruit from that seed (Future event)., 3. Vartamana Kala - (inference in general) When one sees smoke he gets the, knowledge of fire (Present event)., , Classification on basis induction, A.) ânvayi inference: (Positive inference), When Vyapti between middle and major term derived from uniform agreement, presence alone, it called Kevalânvayi inference. In inference the hetu affirmative, concomitance with sadhya only., For example,,  knowable objects nameable;,  The pot is knowable object;,  Therefore the pot nameable., , [Type here]

Page 32 :
32 | P a g e, , B.) Keval avyatireki Inference: -(Negative inference), When Vyapti between middle and the major is derived from uniform agreement in, absence alone, it is called kevalâvyatireki inference., In this inference hetu is only negatively related to the sadhya., For example:, • What is not different from other elements has no smell;, • The earth has smell;, therefore the earth is different from other elements., C.) Anvaya vyatireki inference : - (Positive & Negative inference), When the middle term in an inference is both positively and negatively related to the, major term, it is called anvayavyatireki inference. In it there is a Vyapti or universal, relation between the hetu and the sadhya in respect of both their presence and absence., For example:, a) All smoky objects are fiery;, • The hill is smoky;, • Therefore the hill is fiery., . b) No non-fiery object is smoky;,  The hill is smoky,  . Therefore the hill is not non-fiery;, That is, the hill is fiery., Classification on the basis of induction, i) Keval ânvayi- agreement in presence, (like Mill's method of agreement), ii) Kevala vyatireki- agreement in absence (like Mill's method of difference), iii) Anvaya vyatireki- Agreement in presence and absence, (like Mill's joint method of, agreement and difference), [Type here]

Page 33 :
33 | P a g e, , Mill's methods, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an English philosopher who wrote on a wide range, of topics ranging from language and science to political philosophy., • The so-called "Mill's methods" are five rules for investigating causes that he has, proposed., • It has been suggested that some of these rules were actually discussed by the famous, Islamic scientist and philosopher Avicenna (980-1037)., , [Type here]

Page 34 :
34 | P a g e, , 3. Comparison(Upamana), Upamana is described as the knowledge derived from similarity. It is third source of, valid knowledge,  Up means "Similarity" 'Sadrusya',  Mana means "Knowledge" Cognition., Hence, Upamana derivatively means the knowledge of the similarity between two, things., • It has been defined as the knowledge of relation between a person and its, denotation., • . Keep in mind the difference between Anumana and Upamana :, • Anumana talks about Universal Applicable truth. E.g.: Smoke is present in Fire, holds true across the globe whereas Upamana is based on Analogy and may not, be based on Universal truth but based on our thoughts.,  Upamana is the third source of valid knowledge.,  For example, when we tell a city man that a wild cow is an animal like a cow, later, on, when he sees a wild cow in a forest, he recognizes it as a wild cow. Then, his, knowledge of the wild cow is the outcome of conjunction with the knowledge of, the cow.,  Hence, the 'Upamana' is just the knowledge of the relation between a name (here it, is the wild cow and the object denoted by that name (the actual wild cow seen in the, forest).,  Mimamsa treats Upamana as analogy.,  . Buddhism accepts comparison as an independent source of valid knowledge.,  Mimamsakas & Advaitins define Upamana as the process by which the knowledge, of A's similarity to B is gained from the perception of B's similarity to A, which has, been seen elsewhere., • This methodology is seen as distinct from mere inference, and is thus accepted as a, valid mediate method of knowledge., • For example, a person who has seen his cow at home goes to a forest and sees a, gavaya (a wild cow but without dewlap)., , [Type here]

Page 35 :
35 | P a g e, ,  The person sees the similarity 'This gavaya is like my cow', and on this basis also, concludes the opposite to be equally true, that 'My cow is like this gavaya'. Thus by, Upamana he gains the knowledge of his cow's similarity to the gavaya from the, perception of the gavaya's similarity to his cow.,  In various ancient and medieval texts of Hinduism, 32 types of Upanama and their, value in epistemology are debated.,  It is different from mere perception and inference and is based on a comparison.,  For example, a person who has known that a four-legged animal that barks is called, a dog in his village. When this person goes to the jungle and sees a similar looking, animal which barks, he can say that 'this wild dog is like the dog in my village' or 'the, dog in my village is like this wild dog'.,  Such knowledge is possible when there is a prior familiarity with a particular thing, which lets the person compare both the things based on the known familiarity., , Components of Upamana, 1. The subject of comparison is formally called upameyam,, 2. The object of comparison is called upamanam,, 3. The attribute(s) are identified as samanya, Subject of comparison -- Upameyam, Object of comparison----- Upamanam, Attribute(s)--, , Samanya, , Thus, explains Monier Williams, if a boy says "her face is like the moon in, charmingness", "her face" is upameyam, the moon is upamanam, and, charmingness is samanya., , [Type here]

Page 36 :
36 | P a g e, , 4. Word (Sabda),  According to Nyaya Philosophy, Shabda is the fourth and last valid source of, knowledge.,  Sabda means relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts.,  The reliability of the source is important, and legitimate knowledge can only come, from the Sabda of reliable sources.,  According to Nyaya School it is fourth and last valid source of knowledge.,  Testimony of past or present reliable experts (also called 'Aptavakya').,  Aptavakya - It is defined as the statement of a trustworthy person.,  Apta - Those who always tell the truth.,  Vakya - Sentence- A sentence is defined as a collection of words.,  .Words- Word is defined as that which is potent to convey its meaning., • This means gaining proper knowledge is either spoken or written., • Sabda is to be deemed valid when its meaning has been properly and carefully, understood.,  In ancient times, Vedas were considered to be the most authentic source of, knowledge by most of the Indian philosophers. Some western philosophers, totally rejected this idea and called for context-based knowledge.,  This also opened the debate that there can be various sources of knowing objects, and its validity and reliability depends on the source as well as the context. In modern, days, we rely on newspapers, books, journals, TV news etc. to form our object of, knowledge or opinion.,  The mere combination of words does not provide a valid knowledge. All verbal, statements are not valid. Hence, Gautama defines Shabda Pramana as the statement, of a reliable person., • In other words, verbal testimony is the communication from a trustworthy person, who is a trustworthy person (apta) and why is assertion (upadesa) a testimony, (prambna)? Analyzing the process of verbal testimony we find the following steps., , [Type here]

Page 37 :
37 | P a g e, , • First, there is the perception of the words of a sentence uttered by a trustworthy, person., • Second, there is the understanding of the meaning of words. This is called the, Karana or the special cause of the verbal knowledge. The knowledge of words, (padajnana) leads to the knowledge of objects through the function (vyapara) of, recalling the meaning of words., , •CONDITIONS OF SABDA PRAMANA, 1. Akanksha: It is mutual implication or expectancy. It is the capacity of the words to, become objects of enquiry. When we hear a word describing or signifying a course of, action something of that course of action becomes our object of enquiry. The words of, a sentence are interrelated and stand in need of one another in order to express a, complete sense. A mere aggregate of unrelated words will not make a logical sentence., It will be sheer nonsense, e.g., 'cow horse man elephant'., 2. Yogyata: the words should possess the fitness to convey the sense and should not, contradict the meaning. For e.g., 'water the plants with fire', it is a contradictory, sentence. It is the condition of consistency., 3. Sannidhi: The third condition is the close proximity of the words to one another., The words must be spoken in quick secession without any long intervals. If the words, 'bring', 'a', 'cow' are uttered at long intervals they would not make a logical sentence. It, is defined as contiguity., 4. Tatparya: The valid of a sentence depends on it purport not on its literal meaning., It is the condition of the intention of the speaker if the words are ambiguous. For e.g.,, the word' saindhva' means salt as well as horse. Now if a man who is taking his food, asks another to bring 'saindhava', the latter should not bring a horse. Hence this, condition can also be said to be interpreted on the basis of common sense., , [Type here]

Page 38 :
38 | P a g e, , CONDITIONS OF SABDA PRAMANA, • AKANSHA--It is the capacity of words to become object of enquiry., • YOGYATA- The words should not contradict the meaning., • SANINIDHI- The close proximity of the words to one another., • TATPARYA--The validity of sentence depends on its purport, not its literal. (i.e., intention of the speaker), Lets understand 2 broad classification of Sabda Pramana:, 1. On the basis of source., Scriptural (Vaidika) - The Vaidika testimony is perfect and infallible because the, Vedas are spoken by God. Vaidika or scriptural testimony is thus perfect and infallible, by its very nature., Secular(Laukika) - Being the words of human beings who are liable to errors, is not, infallible. But Laukika or secular testimony is not all valid., • It is the testimony of human beings and may, therefore, be true or false of Laukika, testimony, only that which proceeds from trustworthy persons is valid, but not the rest., 2. On the basis of object., • There are two kinds of Sabda, namely, that relating to perceptible objects (drstartha), and that relating to imperceptible objects (adrstartha).,  Perceptible objects (drstartha) - The first one deals with perceptible objects in, which we include the trustworthy assertions of ordinary persons, saints, and the, scriptures. For instance, we can talk about the assertions of a reliable farmer, regarding the proper cultivation of crops., , [Type here]

Page 39 :
39 | P a g e, ,  Imperceptible objects (adrstartha)- Adrstartha relates to imperceptible objects, such as acceptable statements of common men, saints, religious texts, statements of, scientists concerning atoms, beliefs of religious texts. It refers to the object which, cannot be seen or verified., , 5. Postulation Derivation from Circumstances (Arthapatti),  Artha means "Significance",  Apatti means "Supposition" (Kalpana),  Arthapatti is supposition of a cause (Cause here is Assumed).,  Arthapatti (Presumption) It is an independent source of knowledge. It is, admitted as a distinct pramana which cannot be brought under anumana or Sabda.,  Arthapatti is knowledge arrived at through presumption or postulation. Many Indian, scholars considered this pramana as invalid or at best weak, because the boat may, have gotten delayed or diverted.,  Arthapatti is considered as fifth source of Pramana., • The means of presumption (Karan) is the knowledge of the inner contradiction, (Anupatti) and it is the result of reconciliation of the contradiction (Upatti)., Knowledge ---ASSUMPTION,  It consists in the assumption of some unperceived fact in order to explain apparently, inconsistent facts. Let's take an example of Arthapatti.,  Devadatta is alive and he is not present in his house, and we presume that he is, elsewhere.,  The essential element in presumption is that a certain fact like Devadatta's 'being, alive' and 'not being present in his house' is unaccountable without presuming, another fact such as being outside his house.,  In presumption, we proceed from the knowledge of something to be explained to, the knowledge of that which explains it.,  The means of presumption (Karana) is the knowledge of the inner contradiction, (Anupatti) and its result is the reconciliation of the contradiction (upapatti)., , [Type here]

Page 40 :
40 | P a g e, ,  If Devadatta is fat and does not eat during the day, we presume that he must be, eating during night, otherwise the inconsistency between 'being fat' and 'not, eatingduring day' cannot be resolved.,  It means postulation, derivation from circumstances.,  In contemporary logic, this pramana is similar to circumstantial implication.,  This means postulation, supposition or presumption of a fact.,  It is a distinct valid method of mediate knowledge.,  It is in fact a method of assumption of an unknown fact in order to account for a, known fact that is otherwise inexplicable.,  The classic example of this method of knowledge is a fat person.,  He says that he never eats in the day, then we can easily postulate that he eats in the, night, for the simple reason that without this assumption his fatness & also his, getting fatter cannot be explained.,  For example, if a person left in a boat on river earlier, and the time is now past the, expected time of arrival, then the circumstances support the truth postulate that, the person may have reached its destination.,  It is to be noted that the essential element in pre assumption (Arrival of boat) in, the above example is unaccountable without presuming other fact like 'boat may, have drowned' or taken a different route (Not the usual route for which time was, calculated).,  This form of postulation and deriving from circumstances is, claim the Indian, scholars, a means to discovery, proper insight and knowledge.,  It includes postulation, supposition, and presumption. This form of knowledge is, either gained from what we have seen or heard, and are assuming rightly.,  For example, a healthy person says that he doesn't sleep at night. From this, proposition, we can postulate that this person sleeps during the day. Without this, assumption, it is not possible to explain why this person is healthy and alive, without sleeping. Assumption and implication are very useful concepts to make, logical arguments about the world., , [Type here]

Page 41 :
41 | P a g e, , 6. Non-perception (Anupalabdhi),  Anupalabdhi also called as 'negative or cognitive proof" Anupalabdhi pramana, suggests that knowing a negative, such as "Flower has no fragnance" is a form of, valid knowledge.,  According to Kumarila Bhatta and others, non-apprehension as the sixth, independent source of knowledge consists in the presentative knowledge of negative, facts.,  In other words, negative facts are cognized by a special instrument (Karana) called, non apprehension.,  If something can be observed or inferred or proven as non-existent or impossible,, then one knows more than what one did without such means.,  In simple terms we can consider Anupalabdhi as Abhava.,  Let us understand the literal meaning of Anupalabdhi by breaking it to parts:,  Anu means "Non",  Uplabdhi means "Availability",  Anupalabdhi is the immediate knowledge of the non-existence of an object.,  Only positive facts are apprehended through positive sources like perception,, inference, etc., but negative facts are apprehended through non-apprehension.,  For example, the absence of a jar on the ground is apprehended through, Anupalabdhi.,  Kumarila argues that the concept of the emptiness of the container inevitably, presupposes nonexistence.,  He also refutes the Nyaya view that non-apprehension is the same as perception or, inference. Negation is never perceived, for there is no sense object contact in it.,  We use this method of knowledge also very often, and this is evident from, statements like  . 'There is no teacher in the class-room'.,  . There is no sound here'.,  'This flower has no fragrance'., [Type here]

Page 42 :
42 | P a g e, , Structure And Kinds Of Anumana (Inference), , [Type here]

Page 43 :
43 | P a g e, , 1. In Sanskrit inference is known as 'anumâna'., 2. Anumâna is the second source of valid knowledge according to the Nyâya-Vaiúeika, school., 3. Anumâna is a mediate and indirect source of knowledge., 4. Inference is mediate and indirect. That is arranged through the medium of some mark, which is called 'hetu'.,  The word anumana is combination of 'ANU' which means after and 'MANA' which, means knowledge,  The combined meaning of the word is 'after knowledge'., , Theory of inference,  The methodology of inference involves a combination of induction and deduction, by moving from particular to particular via generality.,  The Pancavayava Vakya plays an important role in Pararth Anumana., 1) Pratijna, 2) Hetu, 3) Udaharana, 4) Upanaya and, 5) Nigamana, Let's take the example to understand it,  .The hill is fiery.,  .Because the hill is smoky.,  Whatever has fire has smoke., • In the above example, we pass from the perception of smoke in the hill to the, knowledge of the existence of fire in it on the ground of our previous knowledge of the, universal relation between smoke and fire., , [Type here]

Page 44 :
44 | P a g e, , It has five steps, as in the example shown:,  There is fire on the hill (called Pratijna, required to be proved),  Because there is smoke there (called Hetu, reason),  Wherever there is smoke, there is fire, e.g. in a kitchen (called Udaharana,, example of Vyâpti),  •The hill has smoke that is pervaded by fire (called Upanaya, reaffirmation or, application),  Therefore there is fire on the hill (called Nigamana, conclusion), •This five-member syllogism may be illustrated in the following way:,  This hill has fire (pratijna),,  Because has smoke (hetu),,  Whatever has smoke has fire e.g. an oven (udaharana),,  This hill as smoke which is invariably associated with fire (upanaya),,  Therefore this hill has fire (nigamana).,  a hypothesis (pratijna), reason (hetu), an example (udaharana) reaffirmation, (upanaya) and conclusion (nigamana).,  The first, the pratijna, is the logical statement which is to be proved.,  The second is hetu or reason which states the reason for the establishment of the, proposition.,  The third is udaharana which the universal concomitance together with example.,  The fourth is upanaya or application of the universal concomitance to the present, case.,  The fifth is nigamana or conclusion drawn from the preceding propositions., , [Type here]

Page 45 :
45 | P a g e, , 1. Pratijna- Proposing the thing that is to be proved in future is called as Pratijna.,  It is also called as proposition or declaration.,  The mountain is fiery; this is the declaration which is to be proved., 2. Hetu - The means (reason or cause) for obtaining the knowledge is called as Hetu.,  Because there is smoke on mountain., 3. Udaharana- Explaining something by stating some examples is called as Drushtanta.,  This Drushtanta (example) makes both Buddhivan Purusha (wise) and Murkha, Purusha (ignorant) to understand the subject at the same time. In common language, it is called as Udaharana., • Where ever there is smoke there is fire, for ex - Mahanasa (Kitchen), 4. Upanaya - When the statement which has to be proved is compared with the, Drushtanta/Udaharana then it is Upanaya, i.e. comparison in between the Pratijna, and the Drushtanta is called Upanaya.,  Vyapti Vishishta - Inseparable concomitance (smoke & fire),  Paksha Dharmata - Existence of Hetu (smoke) on Paksha (mountain). • The, Mountain is also like the kitchen., 5. Nigamana - Conclusion of the matter which was propagated initially is called as, Nigamana. To repeat the Pratijna after its establishment is called Nigamana.,  Establishment of a statement with the help of Hetu, Drushtanta and Upanaya is, Sthapana or Nigamana.,  So there is fire on the mountain.,  Hence Anumana means knowledge based on prior knowledge.,  Excluding Charvaka School of Philosophy, all major school of philosophies accept, Anumana pramana.,  Let us understand some major terms with the help of below example from Nyaya, School of Philosophy:, [Type here]

Page 46 :
46 | P a g e, , Paksha (Subject),  The subject or place where the object to be proved is suspected is called Paksha.,  This mountain is fiery. In this statement as the fire is suspected on the mountain,, the mountain is called as Paksha (Subject/place)., Paksha is of 2 types, 1. Sapaksha - The place where the Paksha definitely exists is Sapaksha., For ex - Kitchen, where the fire definitely exists., 2. Vipaksha - The place where the absence of Sadhya is already proved is Vipaksha.,  For ex - Lake, in a lake fire never exists.,  The existence of Hetu (ex - Dhooma) on Paksha (ex- mountain) is called as, Paksha Dharmata., , Sadhya (Object),  The presence or the existence of an object which has to be proved on Paksha is, called Sadhya.,  For example,  Fire exists on the Mountain, here the fire is Sadhya, which has to be proved., , Hetu (Reason),  With which knowledge the existence or presence of an object is proved on Paksha, is called as Hetu.,  The reason for obtaining a particular knowledge is known as Hetu.,  For ex-Dhooma is the Hetu to prove the existence of the Agni on the Parvata., , [Type here]

Page 47 :
47 | P a g e, , Vyapti (Invariable Concomitance),  Vyâpti is a relation of invariable concomitance between middle term and the, major term.,  The mutual relation between the smoke and fire is called as Vyapti. i.e. wherever the, smoke exists there exists the fire.,  This relation is called as Vyapti.,  Vyapti is the logical ground of inference. Vyâpti is the nerve of inference. If we, understand the word,  Vyapti by breaking it into parts:,  Vi means "Vishesh",  Aapti means "Sambandh",  Vyapti is defined as the unconditional and constant concomitant relation between, "vyapya", the pervaded, and "vyapaka", the pervader., ,  Association of smoke and fire in the below example is known as Vyapti., • Fire is Sadhya., • Hill is Paksha., • Smoke is Hetu., , [Type here]

Page 48 :
48 | P a g e, ,  The word 'Vyâpti' literally means 'the state of pervasion.,  It implies a correlation between two facts, of which one is pervaded (vyapya), and, the other pervades (vyapaka).,  A fact is said to pervade another when it always accompanies the other.,  A fact is said to be pervaded by another when it is accompanied by the other. In the, given example, smoke is pervaded by fire, since it is always accompanied by fire.,  But while all smoky objects are fiery, all fiery objects are not smoky, e. g., the red, hot iron ball.,  Thus, Vyâpti is a relation of invariable concomitance between middle term, and the major term.,  Without the definite knowledge of such a relation, our inference of fire is impossible, in spite of the perception of smoke.,  Vyapti is a universal statement that expresses the "niyata sahacharya" or relation, of constant concomitance between hetu or the middle term and sadhya or the major, term.,  It implies the "sahachara" i.e. the knowledge of invariable relation of causality or, co-existence between sadhya and hetu in all the three instances of time, which is, possible when the "anupadhik sambandha" i.e. relation of unconditionality, between the two is known., Let us understand meaning of some major terms mentioned above, , , , , , Niyat- Constant, Sahcharya - Concomitance or co-existence, Anaupdhik- relation of unconditionality between the two., Sarvabhaumik - Universal., ,  . Hence Vyapti defined as the unconditional and constant concomitant relation, between "vyapya", the pervaded, and "vyapaka", the pervade., ., [Type here]

Page 49 :
49 | P a g e, ,  A Vyapti may be of two types and they are as follows.,  Samavyâpti or Equipollent concomitance - A Vyâpti between terms of equal, extension is called samavyâpti or equipollent concomitance.,  for example 'nameable' and 'knowable'. Whatever is nameable is knowable and again, whatever is knowable is nameable. Here, we can infer either of the terms from the, other.,  Asama Vyâpti - A Vyâpti between terms of unequal extension is called asama, Vyâpti. Fire is present in all cases where smoke is present, but the reverse is not true.,  It is the relation of non-equipollent concomitance between two terms. Here, we can, infer one term from the other, but not vice-versa.,  For Example we may infer fire from smoke, but not smoke from fire.,  Fire is present in all cases wherever smoke is present, but the reverse is not true., , [Type here]

Page 50 :
50 | P a g e, ,  The Naiyayikas maintain that there are 6 ways or methods for the, establishment of Vyâpti., They are the following:, 1. Anvaya or Agreement in Presence: Vyâpti is a relation of agreement in presence, (Anvaya) between two things., 2. Vyatireka or Agreement in Absence: The hetu and the sadhya should agree in, being absent together., 3. Vyabhicaragraha: We do not observe any contrary instance in which one of them, is present and the other is absent. That is, they must be related to each other., 4. Upâdhinirasa or Elimination of Condition: Vyâpti is an unconditional, relationship that is universal and necessary. An adventitious condition may vitiate the, natural and invariable relation between hetu and sadhya., 5. Tarka or Hypothetical Reasoning: Tarka is an indirect method to get the Vyâpti., All the methods mentioned above are direct methods. Ratiocination is the process of, thinking about something in a logical way to establish the Vyâpti., 6. Sâmânyalakaa Pratyaka: Sâmânyalakaa pratyaka is an extraordinary perception., They maintain that when we perceive an individual case, we also perceive all the actual, and possible instances of fire and smoke., , Drushtanta or Udaharana,  To bring the knowledge of an object to others, citing another object is called, Drushtanta or Udaharana.,  It is one of the Panchavayava Vakyas of Pararth Anumana., Drushtanta is of 2 types, 1. Sadharmya Drushtanta - This is also called as Anvayi Drushtanta. The Mahanasa, (kitchen) is a Sadharmya Drushtanta., 2. Vaidharmya Drushtanta - This is also called as Vyatireka Drushtanta. The Jalashaya, (Pond) is a Vaidharmya Drushtanta., [Type here]

Page 51 :
51 | P a g e, , Vyapti is of 2 types, 1. Anvaya Vyapti and, 2. Vyatireki Vyapti.,  Anvaya Vyapti - This type of Vyapti is based on fixed affirmity between Hetu, (means) and Sadhya (object) or between reason and action. Wherever Hetu exists, there always Sadhya also exists.,  For ex- Where there is smoke there is fire.,  Vyatireka Vyapti - Vyatireka means absence, for instance if Sadhya (Agni) is, absent Hetu (Dhooma) is also absent. As in a pond., , Linga / Hetu (Reason),  The Vishishta Lakshana which will be present always with an object (Sahacharya, Niyama - to be with) is called as the Linga.,  Lakshana of Linga:,  The one which helps to clarify the knowledge of an object with the help of the, Vyapti (invariable concomitance) is called as Linga., , Linga Paramarsa:,  The Nyaya syllogism has five terms. Among them, middle term works as a bridge, between the major and the minor terms. Therefore, the middle term has main, responsibility to prove a syllogism valid or invalid.,  How a middle term is related to major term is linga-paramarsha.,  There are five characteristics of a middle term., , [Type here]

Page 53 :
53 | P a g e, , Paramarsha (Consideration),  The knowledge that the Vyapti (concomitance) exists in the Paksha (subject) is called, Paramarsha (consideration)., 1. Paksha - The subject of observation., 2. Sadhya - Proof to be reached., 3. Hetu - Reason for an inference., • These three are the main components of inference. Devoid of them no Anumana, can exist., , THE CONSTITUENTS OF INFERENCE,  This may be explained with the help of the above example of inference, the presence, of fire on the perception of smoke. When one sees smoke on distant hill one, remembers one's experience of the universal concomitance (Vyapti) between smoke, and fire and concludes that there is fire on the distant hill.,  In the above mentioned example, three points are to be noted. First, there is the, perception of a mark or reason (hetu), (e.g. smoke) in a subject (hill).,  Secondly, there is a recollection of the relation of invariable concomitance between, smoke and fire as we have observed in the past.,  Thirdly, there is the inference of the existence of an unperceived object ( e. g. fire), in the subject (e. g. hill).,  Three terms are involved in this inference., They are, 1. Pakshsa, (Minor Term), 2. Sadhya (Major Term), 3. Hetu (Middle Term),  The character which is inferred (fire) is called sadhya;,  The mark on the strength of which the character is inferred is the hetu (smoke);, the subject where the character is inferred is paksa (hill)., , [Type here]

Page 54 :
54 | P a g e, ,  The three terms correspond to the major, minor and the minor terms in the, Aristotelian syllogism..,  The hypothesis is conditionally true if there are positive examples and an absence of, counter-evidence.,  Inference is a process of reasoning in which we know some unperceived character, of a thing through the medium of a mark which is found present in the thing and is, known to be universally related to that character.,  The word 'anumāna' literally means the cognition, which follows from other, knowledge.,  Here the prefix 'anu' means 'after' and 'mana' means 'knowledge'.,  It is mediate, indirect and arises through a 'mark' the 'middle term' (Ling or Hetu), which is invariably connected with the 'major term' (Sadhya)., , Amar kumar.Amar, B.com(Hons),Shri, Ram, college, commerce(Delhi university ), M.COM,, UGC, NET-JRF, (QUALIFIED) (2 JRF &1 NET ), , COMMERCE, , Contact no- 9801093915, Email – [email protected], FB- https://www.facebook.com/amarkr7, , [Type here], , of