History of Indian Philosophy

SR No.: 007593
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Surendranath Dasgupta
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Publication Year: 1922
Total Pages: 2517
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 125 MB

Page 1416

XX]
Verkațanātha's treatment of Inference 227 out that, since Yāmuna rejects the kevala-vyatireki form of argument in his lecture on Atma-siddhi, it is better to suppose that, when the previous authors referred to spoke of kevala-vyatireki as a form of inference, it was not admission of their acceptance of it, but only that they counted it as being accepted by the Nyāya logicians?.
The author of the Rāmānuja-siddhānta-samgraha points out that it may very well be brought under anvaya-vyatireki. Thus we may argue "body is earthly by virtue of its possession of smell; for whatever possesses smell is earthly and whatever does not possess smell is not earthly.” So in this form it may be put forward as a anvaya-vyatireki form of argument. The possession of smell (gandhavattva) may very well be put forth as "reason" or hetu, the presence of which determines earthiness and the absence of which determines non-earthiness or difference from non-earthiness.
Rāmānuja logic admits the necessity of "tarka" (cogitation regarding the relative possibilities of the alternative conclusions by a dialectic of contradictions) as an indispensable means of inferential conclusions. Regarding the number of propositions, Verkațanātha says that there is no necessity of admitting the indispensable character of five propositions. Thus it must depend on the way in which the inference is made as to how many propositions (avayava) are to be admitted. It may be that two, three, four or five propositions are deemed necessary at the time of making an inference. We find it said in the Tattva-ratnākara also that, though five propositions would make a complete statement, yet there is no hard and fast rule (aniyama) regarding the number of propositions necessary for inference?
Verkațanātha urges that inference is always limited to perceptible objects. Things which entirely transcend the senses cannot be known by inference. Inference, though irrefragably connected with perception, cannot, on that account, be regarded as a mode of perception; for the knowledge derived from perception is always indirect (a-parokşa). Inference cannot also be regarded as due to memory; for it always reveals new knowledge. Further, it cannot be said to be a form of mental intuition, on account of the fact that inference works by rousing the subconscious impressions of the mind; for such impressions are also found to be active in percep
1 Nyāya-parisuddhi and Rāmānuja-siddhānta-samgraha.
2 Ibid.
15-2