Since you are not logged in, some functions (such as the OCR button) have been disabled. To use all website features, please create an account. Handbook of Classical Sanskrit Rhetoric / 89 Image 89 of 262 (Page 33) History ← → Proofed once Layout Image right, text left Image above, text below Markup Mark as error Mark as fix Mark as unclear Mark as footnote number Tools : (colon) → ः (visarga) S → ऽ (avagraha) Transliterator From: Harvard-Kyoto ("aGka" → अङ्क) ITRANS ("a~Nka" → अङ्क) OPTITRANS ("anka" → अङ्क) To: Devanagari IAST Transliterate selected text Characters Click a character to copy it. Ā ā Á á Â â À à Ī ī Í í Î î Ì ì Ū ū Ú ú Û û Ù ù Ṛ ṛ Ṝ ṝ Ḷ ḷ Ḹ ḹ Ē ē É é Ê ê È è Ō ō Ó ó Ô ô Ò ò Ḥ ḥ Ṁ ṁ Ṃ ṃ Ṅ ṅ Ñ ñ Ṇ ṇ Ṭ ṭ Ḍ ḍ Ś ś Ṣ ṣ Ç ç । ॥ ऽ ॰ ꣲ ꣳ Help A+ A- In Mīmāṃsā school of philosophy, arthāpatti is one of the five sources of knowledge or modes of proof (pramāṇa). There it has been explained thus : arthāpatti is deduction of a matter from that which could not else be ; assumption of a thing, not itself perceived but necessarily implied by another which is seen, heard or proved. In Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika school of philosophy, arthāpatti in a kind of inference (anumāna). But the mīmāṃsakas treat it as a special kind of inference (a separate method of knowledge, different from anumāna) used to account for an apparent inconsistency. The differ- ence between anumāna and arthāpatti (ie inference and presumption) may be shown thus: (a) The strong and stout man does not take food during day-time. From this statement it may be presumed that he takes food during night. But the logic of the philosophical school is slightly different from that of the rhetorical school. According to Viśvanātha, the figure Arthāpatti is based on the logic of the maxim of 'the stick-and-cake' (ie daṇḍa-apūpikā-nyāya) Arthāpatti was first introduced by Bhoja who was followed by Ruyyaka, Jayadeva, Viśvanātha Appayya, Jagannātha and others. In order to explain the logical sequence of this figure Appayya has refferred to the maxim: what else can it be? (ie kaimutika-nyāya). eg 1. sa jitas tvan mukhenenduḥ / kā vārtā sarasīruhām! स जितस्त्वन्मुखेनेन्दुः / का वार्ता सरसीरुहाम् ? Even that (glamourous) moon has been vanquished by her face, Then what else can be the plight of the water-born lotus! Here the poet intends to signify the beauty of the lotus-like face of the maiden. But instead of directly stating this he informs that even the moon has been defeated by the face and therefore the lotus appears insignificant to it. So it is implied from the state- ment that the beauty of the face is par excellence (as it is not com- parable to the moon or the lotus). 🔍+ 🔍° 🔍- ⟲ ⟳ Edit summary (optional) Status Needs more work Proofed once Proofed twice Not relevant Only registered users can save changes. Create an account or sign in to save your changes.