TARKA SANGRAHA NOTES

ON ANUMAANAM
***

The following portions are easy so I will not provide any notes. Please read them and we can discuss
when classes resume:

Section 6 – Upamaana (Analogy) : Pages 117, 118

Section 7 – Shabda (Valid Verbal Testimony ) : Pages 119, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129

Section 9 – Ayathaartha anubhava (Erroneous Apprehension) : Pages 136, 137, 138

Remaining Gunas (Qualities) - Sukha, Dukkha, Desire, Anger, Effort, Merit, Demerit,
Sanskara: Pages 138, 139, 140, 141

In all of the above topics you may read only the text that is in bigger size English font.

***

ANUMAANAM (INFERENCE)
Inference is of two kinds

(a) Inference for oneself

(b) Inference for others

A – Inference for oneself

An example of this kind if inference - A person having repeatedly seen in the kitchen, forest and
such other cases that there is invariable concomitance (co-existence) of smoke with fire, arrives at
the universal generalization: Wherever there is smoke, there is fire. Then he goes to the hill and sees
smoke and suspects fire also to be present there. Then he remembers the universal concomitance:
Wherever there is smoke, there is fire. After this, the knowledge arises in him that “this hill has
smoke that is pervaded by fire”. Then he reaches the conclusion “The hill has fire”.

This is called “Inference for oneself”.

B – Inference for Others

Having carried out the inference on his own in above mentioned fashion, the person then employs
the following five-member syllogism in order to communicate to another person about fire in the
hill.

This inference is framed as a five-member syllogism as follows :

1. The hill has fire – (Pratijnaa / Thesis)

2. Because there is smoke on the hill – (Hetu / Reason)
3. Wherever there is smoke there is fire; for example, kitchen – (Udaaharanam / Example)
4. The hill has smoke which is always pervaded by fire – (Upanaya / Subsumptive Reflection)
5. Therefore the hill has fire – (Nigamanam / Conclusion)

DEFINITIONS

1. Inference (Anumaanam): Inference is the special cause of Inferential knowledge (Anumiti).

2. Inferential Knowledge (Anumiti): Inferential knowledge is the knowledge born out of

Subsumptive Reflection (Paraamarsha)

3. Subsumptive Reflection (Paraamarsha): The application of past knowledge to the present

situation is called Subsumptive Reflection. In the current example, the past knowledge of
invariable coexistence of fire with smoke is applied to the current situation of seeing smoke
on the hill. This is of the form “The hill has smoke which is always pervaded by fire”. From
this subsumptive reflection arises the inferential knowledge “There is fire on the hill”.

4. Invariable Concomitance: The certainty of invariable coexistence is called Invariable

Concomitance. For example, “Wherever there is smoke there is fire”. Here there is invariable
coexistence of fire with smoke; this is known with certainty by experience.

5. Subject (Paksha): The Subject is that on which the thing to be proved is suspected. For
example, in the current example, the hill is called Subject (Paksha) when smoke is seen on it.

6. Similar Instance (Sapaksha): The subject in which the existence of thing to be proved is
known for certain is called Similar Instance. For example, with respect to the hill having
smoke, kitchen is a Similar Instance because the existence of the thing to be proved i.e. fire,
is known with certainty in the kitchen. (NOTE: This is a kitchen where wood, charcoal etc. is
used as fuel).

7. Contrary Instance (Vipaksha): The subject in which the non-existence of thing to be

proved is known for certain is called Contrary Instance. For example, with respect to the hill
having smoke, a lake is a Contrary Instance because the non-existence of the thing to be
proved i.e. fire, is known with certainty in the lake.

8. Mark (Lingam): That which indicates the thing to be proved is called Mark. For example, in
the example of hill with smoke, smoke is the mark which indicates the thing to be proved,
namely, fire.

THREE TYPES OF MARKS (LINGAM)

Mark is of three types namely,

(a) Positive-negative
(b) Purely positive
(c) Purely negative

A – Positive-Negative: Positive-Negative mark is that which has both positive concomitance and
negative concomitance. For example, consider this inference:

The hill has fire (Thesis)

Because it has smoke (Reason)

Wherever there is smoke there is fire, like a kitchen (Example - positive concomitance)

Wherever there is absence of fire there is absence of smoke, like in a lake (Example -
negative concomitance)

The hill has smoke which is always pervaded by fire (Subsumptive Reflection)

Therefore hill has fire (Conclusion)

B – Purely positive: Purely positive mark is that which has only positive concomitance For
example, consider this inference :

A Pot is nameable (Thesis)

Because it is knowable (Reason)

Whatever is knowable is also nameable, like cloth (Example – positive concomitance)

Pot has knowability which is always pervaded by nameability (Subsumptive Reflection)

Therefore Pot is nameable (Conclusion)

But since everything in the universe is both nameable and knowable, it is impossible to find an
example of negative concomitance like “Whatever is not nameable, is also not knowable”.

C – Purely negative: Purely negative mark is that which has only negative concomitance. For
example, consider this inference :

The Earth is different from all others (Thesis)

Because it has smell (Reason)

Whatever is not different from all others, does not have smell, like water (Example –
negative concomitance)
 The Earth has smell which is pervaded by being not not-different from all others
(Subsumptive Reflection)

Therefore it is not not-different (i.e., it is different) from all others (Conclusion)

Here, we cannot find an example for positive concomitance like “Whatever has smell is different
from all others” because any example we choose would be part of Earth only, whereas the example
must be different from the subject (Earth) to demonstrate positive concomitance.

DEFECTIVE REASONS (HETVĀBHĀSĀ)

Defective Reasons (Hetavah) are of five types namely,

(a) Straying reason (Savyabhichāra)

(b) Adverse reason (Viruddha)
(c) Antithetical reason (Satpratipaksha)
(d) Unestablished reason (Asiddha)
(e) Contradicted reason (Bādhita)

A – Straying reason (Savyabhichāra): This defective reason is of three types, namely,

(a) Common straying

(b) Uncommon straying
(c) Non-exclusive straying

(a) Common Straying: In this type of defective reason, the reason is present in a Subject
where there is an absence of thing to be proved, for example,
The hill has fire (Thesis)
Because it has knowability (Reason)

Here the reason knowability is present in a lake where there is absence of fire.

(b) Uncommon straying: In this type of defective reason, the reason is present only in the
Subject while not being present in any similar (Sapaksha) or contrary (Vipaksha)
instances Thus it is impossible to give any example for positive or negative
concomitance. For example,

Word is eternal (Thesis)

Because of soundness (Reason)

Here soundness exists only in sound and is absent in all eternal things as well as all other
non-eternal things.
 (c) Non-exclusive straying: In this type of defective reason, there does not exist any
example for the reason. For example,

Everything is non-eternal (Thesis)

Because it is knowable (Reason)

Here “Everything” is the Subject. Therefore it is impossible to find any example for
positive or negative concomitance.

B – Adverse reason (Viruddha):

In this type of defective reason, the reason is pervaded by the negation of the thing to be
proved, for example,

Sound is eternal (Thesis)

Because it is an effect (Reason)

Here the reason namely, “effect”, is actually pervaded with non-eternality which is the
negation of the thing to be proved.

C – Antithetical reason (Satpratipaksha):

In this type of defective reason, one can find another reason capable of proving the negation
of the thing to be proved, for example,

Sound is eternal (Thesis)

Because it is audible, like soundness (Reason)

Here one can find another reason which proves the opposite of the thing to be proved, for
example,
Sound is non-eternal (Thesis)
Because it is an effect, like a pot (Reason)

D – Unestablished reason (Asiddha): This defective reason is of three types, namely,

(d) Unestablished in respect of its subtratum

(e) Unestablished in respect of itself
(f) Unestablished in respect of its concomitance

(a) Unestablished in respect of its subtratum: In this type of defective reason, the argument
contains a Subject that is unestablished i.e. does not exist, for example,
The sky-lotus is fragrant (Thesis)
Because it is a lotus, like a lotus in a lake (Reason)

Here, the sky-lotus, which is the Subject, does not exist.

 (b) Unestablished in respect of itself: In this type of defective reason, the reason is
unestablished with respect to itself, for example,
Sound is a quality (guna) (Thesis)
Because it is visible (Reason)

Here, the reason “visibility” does not exist in sound, as in sound, only audibility exists.

(c) Unestablished in respect of its concomitance: This type of defective reason arises when
there is presence of an adventitious condition (upaadhi). An upaadhi or adventitious condition
is that which is pervasive of the thing to be proved but is non-pervasive of the reason given.
For example, consider this inference:

The hill has smoke (Thesis)

Because it has fire (Reason);
(NOTE: Here the thing to be proved is smoke and the reason is fire.)

In this inference the Upaadhi (adventitious conditon) is contact with wet fuel. Wherever there
smoke there is contact with wet fuel, e.g. wood; therefore wet fuel is pervasive of the thing to
be proved i.e., smoke. But contact with wet fuel is non pervasive of the reason because we
can give example; Where there is fire there is absence of wet fuel, like in a red-hot iron ball.

Therefore, while being pervasive of the thing to be proved (i.e., smoke), and being non-
pervasive of the reason (i.e., fire), the contact with moist fuel is the adventitious condition or
upaadhi. Thus due to presence of adventitious condition or upaadhi , the reason namely, fire,
is unestablished due to its own lack of pervasiveness.

E – Contradicted reason (Baadhita):

In this type of defective reason, the negation of the thing to be proved is established by
another method of proof, for example,

Fire is not hot (Thesis)

Because it is a substance, like water (Reason)

Here the thing to be proved i.e. “Fire is not hot”, is contradicted by another method of proof
i.e. by direct perception by touch.