Guha, Nirmalya (2015) On Arthapatti. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 44 (4). pp. 757-776. ISSN 00221791

PDF JA_24-11-17-04-17-22.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (561kB) | Request a copy

Abstract

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 Naiya¯yika 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.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Arthāpatti · Inference · Abduction · Tarka · Lakṣaṇā
Subjects:	Humanities > MCPH Manipal
Depositing User:	MCPH User
Date Deposited:	11 Dec 2018 05:04
Last Modified:	11 Dec 2018 05:04
URI:	http://eprints.manipal.edu/id/eprint/152462

Actions (login required)

View Item