Studies in Indian Philosophy

SR No.: 001580
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Dalsukh Malvania, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1981
Total Pages: 352
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, Epistemology, & Religion
File Size: 21 MB

Page 148

Circularity in the ioductive justification ...
121
Advanced Studies in Indian Logic and Metaphysics (reprint of Indian Studies : Past and Present, Calcutta, 1961); also very valuable here are S. Bagchi. Inductive Reasoning : A Study of Tarka and Its Role in Indian Logic (Calcutta, 1953); and R. R. Dravid, The Problem of Universals in Indian Philosphy (Varanasi, 1972), particularly pp. 131-149.
7 PNT, pp. 182ff.
8 PNT, chapter IV, pp. 266 ff. 9 PNT, I. Sūtra 18, p. 73, “prameyāvyabhicāritvam” (“..agreeable with
the knowable").
10 PNT, pp. 182ff. However, this "smoke-fire" example, which is empirically
contingent, is not typical of much Indian tarka-discussions; see my “Remarks on Early Buddhist Proto-Formalism (logic) and Mr. Tachi. kawa's Translation of the Nyāya praveśa," in The Journal of Indian Philosophy 3, (nos. 3/4 September | December, 1975 ), especially pp. 310ff,
11 To illustrate these controversies for those unfamiliar with these venerable
philosophical questions, imagine the following informal dialogue :
A. I see smoke over there, and since wherever there is smoke there is
always fire, I know then that there is fire over there too, B. Why should I believe that ?
A. Because I have never found any instances in which it was not true
that if there was no fire there was no smoke. So where there is smoke, there is fire, too. And I see smoke, so there is fire. OK. I see the smoke there too, but why shonld I believe that if seeing that two general things, like smoke and fire, have been constantly seen together, why should that guarantee anything for the future? That is just a forecast based on past experience.
B.
I know that it is a forecast; but what else have we ? If that general rule about two things constantly occurring together in the pa not enough on which to base your actions and expectations, then what is ?
B. I know, but when you say that if that general rule is not enough then
nothing else is either, you are still assuming, that the general rule itself which you claim worked OK in the past, is still going to work well
SP -16