Showing posts with label vyapti. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vyapti. Show all posts

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.