Abstract
The chapter takes a thoroughly analytical, but somewhat nontraditional, look at the Jaina theory of anumāna in its various aspects. A critical analysis of the scheme of classification of anumāna-s into “svārtha” and “parārtha” is undertaken to show that a svārthānumāna is only a proto-anumāna, not a standard anumāna at all. So, it is wrong and misleading to consider both of them as “anumāna-s” in the same sense. Next, the features of bahirvyāpti and of antarvyāpti are compared, the respective roles played by each of them in universal generalizations and some severe limitations of bahirvyāpti in this respect, etc., are critically discussed one by one. After a detailed analysis of the definition of “antarvyāpti,” it is claimed that antarvyāpti signifies a “semantic-conceptual linkage,” and, in this respect, it has a thematic affinity to Kant’s notion of “synthetic a priori judgements.” “Logical” and “methodological” aspects of antarvyāpti are dis-entangled next. It is followed by a thorough discussion of the nature of Hetvābhāsas, the reasons why they are not to be viewed as purely formal fallacies, an enumeration of different types of hetvābhāsas, lessons to learn from some queer instances of “fallaciously valid” argument-patterns in Western logic, etc. Topics such as the Minimum Number of avayava-s required in an Inferential Unit, notion of “existence” and of Vikalpa as “existence proof,” notions of Contradiction, Contextualization of LNC in Jaina Logic, etc., are discussed after it. The need of balancing between the ontic and the epistemic conceptions of logic, replacing the tautology-centric notion of “deductive validity” by an information-theoretic-cum-context-sensitive notion of “logical infer-ability” [Sanskrit, “anumeyatva”] are discussed next. In the section “Concluding Remarks,” attention is drawn to what the author considers to be an emerging trend of mutual convergence of the respective outlooks [viz., the respective “epistemic” and “ontic” outlooks] of Indian and Western logicians. A final such convergence may even need a radical “paradigm-shift” in the patterns of logical thinking. It is not expected to be an easy task at all. Nevertheless, it feels better to keep dreaming about it as a realizable goal.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Akalamka. 1939. In Akalamka Granthatrayam, [AGT]. It includes Pramāṇa Saṃgrahaśca (PS) and Laghīyas-trayam (LS), ed. M.K. Shastri. Ahmedabad: Sanchālaka Singhi Granthamālā.
Anantavīryācārya. Prameya Ratna Mālā (VS 2020) [PRM] Varanasi.
Bandyopadhyay, Nandita. 1988. The concept of contradiction in Indian logic and epistemology. Journal of Indian Philosophy [JIP] 16: 225–246.
Banerjee, Hiranmoy. 1972. On the mistranslation of the terms ‘Viśeṣya’ and ‘Prakāra. Philosophy East and West no. 22 (i): 93–96.
Bharadwaj, V.K. 1984. The Jaina concept of logic in Studies in Jainism [SIJQ], In M.P. Marathe, M.A. Kelkar, P.P. Gokhale (eds) [SIJQ]
Bhatt, S.R. 1984. Papers presented at the first international conference on Buddhism & National Cultures. New Delhi: ICPR.
Bhattacharya, G.N. 1983. Tarkasamgraha-Dīpikā on Tarkasamgraha. Kolkata: Progressive Publishers.
Bhattacharya, Sibjiban. 1984. Some unique features of Buddhist logic. in S.R. Bhatt (ed.).
Bhattacharya, H.M. 1994. Jaina logic and epistemology. Kolkata: K P Bagchi & Co.
Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar. 2001. A note on formalism in Indian logic. JIP 29: 17–23.
Bhattacharya, Sibajiban. 2009. An introduction to Navya-Nyaya logicin Leila Haaparanta, (ed.) The Development of Modern Logic, pp. 941–956. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Borger, George. 2001. The modernity of Aristotle’s logic. In Aristotle and contemporary science, ed. Demetra Sfendoni-Mentzou et al., vol. II, 2001. Bern: Peter Lang.
Brahma, S. 1998. Some problems of Jaina logic and ontology. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Jadavpur Unversity, Calcutta.
Cartwright, N. 1994. The metaphysics of the disunified world, 357–364. PAS.
Chatterjee, H. 1983 [alias, Chattopadhyay Śāstrī, Herabma (1983)]: Bauddhācārya Sammata Svārthānumāna (in Bengali)].
Corazzon, Raul. Aristotle’s logic: General survey and introductory readings. https://www.historyoflogic.com/logic-aristotle.htm. pp. 110−111.
Corcoran, John. 1994. The founding of logic. Modern interpretations of Aristotle’s logic. Ancient Philosophy 14: 9–24. [It discusses the question of ‘two interpretations of Aristotle’s logic’. According John Corcoran: Łukasiewicz (1929, 16) explicitly rejects the view that deduction is a process of information extraction.].
D’espagnat, B. 1989. Quantum Theory and Pictures of Reality Chapters-5,6]: Springer, Berlin.
Dharmabhūṣaṇa. 1945. Nyāyadīpikā. [ND]. Delhi: Vir Seva Mandir.
Diamond, C. ed. 1939. Wittgenstein’s Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics [LFM].
Dikshit, K.K. 1975. Indian logic: Its problems as treated by its schools. Vaishali/Bihar: Research Institute of Prakrit, Jainology and Ahimsa.
Dutta, S., and A. Chatterjee, eds. 2003. Foundations of logic and language. Kolkata: Jadavpur University.
Ganeri, Jonardon. 1984. Indian logic in its sources. On validity of inference. New Delhi: Munhsiram Monoharlal.
Ganeri, Jonardon. 2003. Ancient Indian logic as a theory of case-based reasoning. Journal of Indian Philosophy no. 31: 33–45.
Ganeri, J., and H. Tiwari, eds. 1998. ‘The character of logic in India’, ed. J. Ganeri, and Tiwari.
Gangopadhyay, M.K. 1975, in JIP. Ascertainment of Invariable Concomitance.
Ghose, P. 1991. “Syādvāda, Relativity and Complementarity”, Occasional Paper No-15, Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture (PHISC). New Delhi.
Goekoop. 1967. The logic of invariable concomitance. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Gokhale, P. 1992. Inference & Fallacies in Ancient Indian Logic.
Gorisse, M. H. 2009. “Non-one-sidedness: Context-sensitivity in Jain Epistemological Dialogues.” ILLC Technical Report: X-2009-04, Amsterdam.
Goswami, A. 1995. Self-aware universe [SAU]. New York: Penguin Putnam. [In this book (p-xiv, p-82) Goswami refers to a number of physicists (e.g., von Neumann, Fritz London, E. Bauer, E.P. Wigner etc.,) who consider consciousness as a possible causal-explanatory parameter needed for understanding QM.].
Gupta, Bina. 1980. Are “Hetvābhāsas” formal fallacies? JIP 8: 135–147.
Haaparanta, Leila, ed. 2009. Development of modern logic [Chapter-18, is on Indian logic]. NY: Oxford Unversity Press.
Haribhadra Sūri. 1947. Anekāntajayapatākā [AKJ], H. B. Kapadia, Oriental series, Baroda.
Haribhadra Sūri. 1986. (Ācārya): Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccaya with Guṇaratna’s commentary (ṢDS), ed. S. Suali, Kolkata: Asiatic Society.
Jain, S.M. 1986. Jaina Bhāsā Darśan [in Hindi]. Delhi: Bhogilal Lehrchand Institute.
Jayantabhaṭṭa. 1934. Nyāyamanjarī. Varanasi: [NM]: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series.
Keynes, J.M. 1957. A treatise on probability. NY: Harper Torch-book.
Kothari, D.S. 1985. Niels Bohr: A centenary volume. In The complementarity principle and eastern philosophy, ed. A.P. French and P.J. Kenney. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Leszl, Walter. 2004. Aristotle’s logical works and his conception of logic. Topoi. An Internationale Review of Philosophy 23: 71–100. [According to Leszl, ‘no unifying conception of logic can be found in Aristotle’s Logical Works’.
Łukasiewicz, J. 1951, 1957. Aristotle’s Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic. Oxford University Press. [2nd Edition, enlarged, 1957. Reprinted by Garland Publishing in 1987].
Mahāprajña, Ācārya. 1984. New dimensions in Jaina logic. Rajasthan: Jain Visva Bharati Institute. Ladnun.
Māṇikyanandī’s Parīksāmukhasūtra [PMS]. 1972. Translated by Mohanlal Jain, Jhansi.
Marathe, M.P., M.A. Kelkar, and P.P. Gokhale, eds. 1984. “Studies in Jainism” [SIJQ], IPQ publication. Publication. Vol. 7. University of Poona, Pune.
Mardia, K.V. 1975. ‘Jaina logic and statistical concepts’, Jain Antiquary and Jain Siddhanta Bhaskar, Oriental Research Institute 27.
Matilal, B.K. 1968. Gangesa’s view on ‘Kevalānvoyin’, in Phil E&W. 36, 37.
Matilal, B.K. 1971. Epistemology, Logic & Ontology in Indian philosophy. The Hague: Mouton & Co.
Matilal, B.K. 1998. p. 44–53; The Character of Logic in India, in J. Ganeri and H. Tiwari, eds. Albany: SUNY Press.
Mishra, Arun. 2002. Antarvyāpti. New Delhi: ICPR.
Mishra, Vidyānivas, A. Vidyalankar, and M. Caturvedi, eds. 1979. Bhāratīya Bhāsā- śāshtrīya Cintan [in Hindi]. Jaipur: Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy.
Mitra, M.N., M.K. Chakraborty, and S. Sarukkai, eds. 2012. Studies in logic: A dialogue between the east and the west. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.
Morgenau. 1950,12−13. The Nature of Physical Reality. N.Y: McGrawhill Co. [He nicely put it thus: “Within limits, even a solipsist can be a successful physicist.”]
Nyāyācārya, Pt.S.C. 1975. Jainadarśaner Digdarśana [in Bengali]. Kolkata: Sanskrit College.
Oetke, Claus. 1996. Ancient Indian logic as a theory of non-monotonic reasoning. Journal of Indian Philosophy 24: 447–539.
Pandey, R.C. 1984. “Nayavāda and many-valued logic, ed. M.P. Marathe.
Perreiah, Alan R. 1993. Aristotle’s axiomatic science: Peripatetic notation or pedagogical plan? History and Philosophy of Logic 14: 87–99.
Perrett, Roy W. 1999. Is whatever exists knowable and nameable? Philosophy East and West 49 (4): 401–414.
Phaṇībhūṣaṇa Tarkavāgīś. 1989. Nyāyadarśana,Vol-1, [in Bengali], 339. Kolkata: Paschim Banga Rajya Pustak Parsad.
Prabhāchandra’s Prameyakamala Mārtaṇda [PKM]. 1914. Mahendra Kumar Sastri. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press.
Priest. 2008. Jaina Logic: A Contemporary Perspective. In History and Philosophy of Logic 29: 263–279.
Priest, G. 2012. Jaina logic in contemporary perspective. In Studies in logic: A dialogue between the east and the west, In M.N. Mitra et al (eds), New Delhi.
Putnam, H. 1992. Representation and reality. Harvard: MIT Press.
Quine, W.V.O. 1957. From a logical pont of view. NY: Harper Torchbook.
Ratnaprabhācārya’s work, Ratnākarāvatārika [RAv]. 1968. L.D. Bharatiya Sanskrit Vidyamandir, Ahmedavad.
Russell. 1919. Introduction to mathematical philosophy, 169. George Allen & Unwin.
Saha, S.R.ed. 1997. Essays in Indian philosophy. Calcutta: Allied Publishers.
Sarkar, T.K. 1992. Knowledge, truth and justification. Calcutta: Allied Publishers.
Sarkar, T. K. 1998. Logics beyond consistency, ed. P.K. Sen
Sarkar, T.K. 2006. Lectures on Janina Philosophy of Language. Unpublished. Delivered at the Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata, India.
Sarkar, T.K. 2009. Jaina Logic. In S. R. Saha (ed), Leila Haaparanta, 928–941.
Sarkar (2020) Studies in Jaina Philosophy: Creating Dialogue with Western Philosophy. [Publication of the book has been delayed until mid-2021].
Śastrī, Nārāyaṇcandra (1390 Bangāvda = 1984 AD): Satīka Tarkasamgraha. [in Bengali]. Sanskrita Pustak Bhandar. Kolkata, India.
Schang, Fabien 2010. “Two Indian Dialectical Logics: Saptabhaṅgī and Catuṣkoṭi”, JICPR, (Vol. XXVII, No. 1).
Sen, P.K., ed. 1998. Logic, identity and consistency. Calcutta: Allied Publishers.
Shaw, Jaysankar. 1978. The Nyāya on existence, Knowability and Nameability. Journal of Indian Philosophy.
Sheehan, T. 2015. Making sense of Heidegger: A paradigm shift. NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
Singh, B.N. 1986. Indian logic. Varanasi: Asha Prakashan.
Srinivas, M.D. 1988. The Indian Approach to Formal Logic and Theory Construction. Jain Antiquary and Jain Siddhanta Bhaskar, Oriental Research Institute, 27.
Staal, Frits. 1973. The concept of ‘Pakṣa’ in Indian logic. Journal of Indian Philosophy 2: 156–165.
Striker, Gisela 1998. Gisela claims, ‘Aristotle, as we all know, invented formal logic’. Aristotle and the Uses of Logic, included in Method in Ancient Philosophy, ed. Genttzler, Jyl, 209−226. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taber, John A. 2004. Is Indian logic nonmonotonic? Philosophy East and West no. 54 (2): 143–170. [Ths a critical assessment of Claus Oetke (1996)].
Tarkavāgīś, Phaṇībhūṣaṇa. 1989. Nyāyadarśana. Vol-1. [in Bengali]. Paschim Banga Rajya Pustak Parsad. Kolkata, India.
[“The customary assumption that the Indian concepts of hetu, sādhya and pakṣa correspond to the Aristotelian middle, major and minor terms, respectively, is incorrect. The concept of paksa is used ambiguously in Indian logic, where it denotes either the term whose property is the sadhya, or the relation between that term and the sadhya. Another ambiguity of the Sanskrit originals, between pakṣa as used and paksa as mentioned, is resolved in a Chinese translation.”]
Udayana. 1911. Nyāya-vārttika Tātparya Parisuddhi [NVTP]. Calcutta: Govt. Sanskrit College.
Vādibhasimha. 1950. Syādvāda Siddhi [Sy. S]. Bombay: Bharatiya Digambara Jaina Granthamala.
Vādideva Sūri. 1966. Pramāṇanayatattvālokālaṅkāra (PNTL), ed. H.S. Bhattacharya. Bombay: Jain Sāhitya Vikāś Maṇdal.
van den Bossche, Frank. 1995. Existence and non-existence in Haribhadra Suri’s Anekanta-Jaya-Pataka. Journal of Indian Philosophy 23: 429–468.
Venkataraman. 1994. What is reality? University press limited. Hyderabad.
Vidyābhūṣaṇa, S.C. 1978. A history of indian logic, 177−178. Delhi: Motilal Barasidass
Wittgenstein, L. 1939. In L. Wittgenstein’s lectures on the foundations of mathematics, ed. C. Diamond. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. 1956. In Remarks on the foundations of mathematics, ed. G.H. Von Wright, R. Rhees, and G.E.M. Anscombe, Second ed., 1967. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. 1961. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [TLP] (trans: DF pears, Richard Ogden), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Yaśovijaya Gaṇi. 1973. Jaina Tarkabhāṣā (JTB), ed. Dayanand Bhargava. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature India Private Limited
About this entry
Cite this entry
Sarkar, T.K. (2022). Jaina Theory of “ANUMĀNA” [Inference]: Some Aspects. In: Sarukkai, S., Chakraborty, M.K. (eds) Handbook of Logical Thought in India. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2577-5_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2577-5_37
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-2576-8
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-2577-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities