Arthāpatti (postulation) does not depend on observation of pervasion or background belief. It is certain in the sense that when S cognizes P through postulation, no other epistemic instrument (pramāṇa) would invalidate P. The Naiyāyika tries to reduce postulation to anumāna and/or tarka. I shall argue that it is neither. Due to its explanatory role, one may think that postulation plays an essential role in lakṣaṇā or indication. But this too is a misconception. Both tarka and lakṣaṇā depend on observation and background knowledge. Neither of them has the epistemic certainty postulation enjoys. I think, due to its observation-independent nature and certainty, postulation can be seen as the source of the knowledge of the truths of reason.
KeywordsArthāpatti Inference Abduction Tarka Lakṣaṇā
Abhidhāvṛttamātṛkā by Mukulabhaṭṭa.
Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1–6, 1931–1935, Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, eds., vols. 7–8, 1958, Arthur W. Burks, ed., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya by Śrī Harṣa.
The Chapter on Arthāpatti, Tattvacintāmaṇi by Gaṅgeśa.
The Chapter on Arthāpatti, Ślokavārttika by Kumārilabhaṭṭa.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Avasthi, B., & Avasthi, I. (1977). Abhidhāvṛttamātṛkā. Delhi: Indu Prakashan.Google Scholar
- Bhaṭṭācārya, S. (2000). Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādyam of Śrī Harṣa (Pramātva-khaṇḍanam). Kolkata: Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture.Google Scholar
- Dasgupta, S. N. (1952). A history of Indian philosophy (Vol. III). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Dvivedi, R. (1973). Abhidhāvṛttimātṛkā of Mukulabhaṭṭa. Vidyābhavan Samskṛta Granthamālā 165. Varanasi.Google Scholar
- Guha, N. (2008). Arthāpatti: A critical examination. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, XXV(4), 107–133.Google Scholar
- Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Matilal, B. K. (1986). Perception: An essay on classical Indian theories of knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Matilal, B. K. (1998). In J. Ganeri & H. Tiwari (Eds.), The character of logic in India. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Sarma, K. V. (Ed.). (1976). Siddhāntadarpaṇam of Nīlakaṇṭhasomayājī with auto-commentary. Hoshiarpur: Panjab University.Google Scholar
- Sastri, A. C. (1929). Bṛhatī of Prabhakara Misra with the Ṛjuvimala of Mahamahopadhyaya Salikanatha Misra. Banaras: The Secretary, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.Google Scholar
- Sastri, S. K. R. (1971). Ślokavārtika of Kumārila with Tātparya-ṭīkā of Uṃveka Bhaṭṭa. Madras: University of Madras.Google Scholar
- Suali, L. (1905). Ṣaḍdarśanasamuccaya of Haribhadra with commentary Tarkarahasyadīpikā. Calcutta: Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
- Śāstrī, A., & Pansikar, V. L. S. (Eds.). (1982). Brahmasūtra Śāṅkara Bhāṣya with the commentaries Bhāmatī, Kalpataru and Parimala. Varanasi: Krishnadas Acaemy.Google Scholar
- Śāstrī, T. (2007). Siddhāntabindu of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī. Banaras: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan.Google Scholar
- Śāstrī, T. G. (1917). The Śābdanirṇaya by Prakāśātmayatīndra. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series 53. Trivandrum.Google Scholar
- Sharma, B. N. K. (1962). The philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass.Google Scholar
- Tailanga, G. S. (1896). The Nyāyasūtras with Vātsyāyana’s Bhāṣya. Benares: E. J. Lazarus & Co.Google Scholar
- Tarkavagish, K. (1990). Tattvacintāmaṇi of Gaṅgeśa (Vol. II, Part 1). Chaukhamba: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan.Google Scholar