________________
54
NYAYA AND JAINA EPISTEMOLOGY
8
fact. It takes no account of the judgement, or rather it considers what is called judgement and what is really the proposition, as a verbal clothing of knowledge; does not make the verbal distinction of subject, copula and predicate.....All these are extraneous to logic, whose object is the constant knowledge considered in itself.”15
Thus, it becomes easy to understand the significance of the distinction which Nyaya Indian logic recognizes between inference for onself and inference for others. Inferential process involves both induction and deduction. It is because of this view of inference that Indian logic has not become purely formal without considerations of material truth. It is this feature which distinguishes it from western logic.
2. According to second classification, inference is classified into three kinds.
i. Pūrvavat, ii. Śeṣavat, iii. Sāmānyatodṛsta
i. A pūrvavat inference is an inference from a perceived cause to the unperceived effect. It is based upon observation of resemblances perceived in the past, e. g. from the appearance of dark clouds the inference of rain. Knowledge of cause leads to the knowledge of an effect.
ii. A seṣavat inference is one in which we infer unperceived cause from the perceived effect, e. g. muddy water leads to an inference of past rain.
iii. Sāmānyatodṛṣṭa inference depends upon our knowledge of uncontradicted experience. Vyapti depends upon uniform relation in our experience, e. g. change in position of sun leads to the inference of the motion of sun because in our experience whenever we perceive change of
