Showing posts with label pratijna. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pratijna. Show all posts

Hinduism - What Is Vyapti In Hindu Philosophy?

 


 ("pervasion") is a word that comes to mind when you think of the word "pervasion."

Vyapti is a basic requirement in traditional Indian philosophy that determines whether an inference is legitimate (anumana).

Three words are used in the recognized form of an inference: an assertion (pratijna) that contains the object to be proven, a reason (hetu) that contains evidence to support the statement, and supporting instances (drshtanta).

The statement is that there is fire on the mountain, and the explanation is that there is smoke on the mountain, with the underlying premise that smoke usually follows fire.

The reason accounts for every example of the object to be demonstrated in a valid inference; this invariable relationship between cause and effect is known as vyapti, or pervasion.



Further Reading: 


Presuppositions of India's Philosophies, edited by Karl H. Potter, published in 1972.


Kiran Atma


You may also want to read more about Hinduism here.

Be sure to check out my writings on religion here.



Hinduism - What Is Vipaksha In Hindu And Indian Philosophy?

 


One of the parts of an accepted form of inference in Indian philosophy (anumana).


An inference is made up of three parts: an assertion (pratijna), a reason (hetu), and an example (drshtanta); each of these three has its own set of constituent parts.


The vipaksha is a negative example given to show that the claim made in the initial assertion reflects the action of specific causes.

It is part of the third term, examples.

For instance, in the inference "there is fire on the mountain because there is smoke on the mountain," the vipaksha could be "unlike a lake," because lakes do not have fire or smoke, indicating that these conditions are not universally present (fire is found in mountains, but not in lakes).


An inference, by convention, had to include a positive example, the sapaksha, to demonstrate that similar events occurred in similar circumstances (i.e., that there were other cases in which there was both fire and smoke).


~Kiran Atma


You may also want to read more about Hinduism here.

Be sure to check out my writings on religion here.



Hinduism - What Is Hetvabhasa In Hindu Philosophy?


A erroneous argument is referred to as Hetvabhasa.

Certain requirements must be satisfied for a valid inference (anumana), otherwise the inference will be invalid.

The accepted form of an inference has three central terms: the first is a hypothesis (pratijna), which includes a subject class (paksha) and a thing to be proved (sadhya); the second is a reason (hetu), which provides evidence for the hypothesis; and the third is examples (drshtanta), which provide additional evidence for the hypothesis.

In the standard example, the hypothesis that "there is fire on this mountain" makes a specific claim (sadhya) about a specific class of objects (paksha), specifically this mountain.

The explanation (hetu) "because there is smoke on this mountain" is given in the second portion of the inference, which simultaneously makes a claim about the subject class—this mountain.

One need for a valid inference is that the subject class falls inside the reason supplied, such that the reason applies to it in all situations.

The subject class and the explanation stated are clearly separated in the phrase "there is fire on this mountain because there is smoke on that mountain." The most fundamental criteria for a valid inference, however, is that the explanation supplied must account for every instance of the item to be proven, and it cannot be explained in any other manner.

This is termed as pervasion (vyapti) and is an important hetu test.

Because smoke was always created by fire, the Indian logicians claimed that asserting that smoke suggested the existence of fire was a reasonable conclusion.

The assertion that fire entailed the existence of smoke, on the other hand, was incorrect.

This was due to the logicians' ability to find an instance in which fire was not always accompanied by smoke, thus failing the “pervasion” requirement—the example of the red-hot iron ball, which was regarded fiery but not smoky.

An upadhi (“obstruction”) is the name for this kind of counterexample.

It reveals that the hetu fails to permeate the sadhya since there is a class of flaming objects that do not smoke, and so proves that the hetu fails to pervade the sadhya.

Karl H. Potter (ed. ), Presuppositions of India's Philosophies, 1972, has further information. 


You may also want to read more about Hinduism here.

Be sure to check out my writings on religion here.



Hinduism - What Is Hetu In Hindu Philosophy?


 (“reason”) This is a crucial aspect in forming an inference in Indian philosophy (anumana).

The term has two different meanings in this context, one widespread and the other more esoteric.

A hypothesis (pratijna), a reason (hetu), and examples (drshtanta) are the three words used to describe an inference.

Each of these three terms has its own constituent pieces.

The term hetu, in its broadest definition, refers to the rationale or evidence that backs up the assumption in the original hypothesis.

The fact that there is smoke on the mountain, for example, would support the premise that it is on fire.

Hetu may also refer to the component of a reason that demonstrates the hypothesis in a more limited meaning.

The portion of the reason that shows that there is smoke is the hetu, for example, if one demonstrates the assertion "the mountain is on fire" with the explanation "the mountain has smoke." 


You may also want to read more about Hinduism here.

Be sure to check out my writings on religion here.