2023-02-15 09:59:06 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
Arthāpattiḥ: Presumption
In Mimānsă 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.
33
In Nyāya-Vaiseșika school of philosophy, arthāpatti in a kind of
inference (anumāna). But the mīmāṇsakas 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 Visvanātha, the figure Arthāpatti is
based on the logic of the maxim of 'the stick-and-cake'
(ie daṇḍa-apupikā-nyāya)
Arthāpatti was first introduced by Bhoja who was followed by
Ruyyaka, Jayadeva, Viśvanātha Appayya, Jagannatha 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-nyaya).
eg 1. sa jitas tvan mukhenenduḥ / kā vārtā sarasiruhām!
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).
Google
Digitized by
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
In Mimānsă 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.
33
In Nyāya-Vaiseșika school of philosophy, arthāpatti in a kind of
inference (anumāna). But the mīmāṇsakas 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 Visvanātha, the figure Arthāpatti is
based on the logic of the maxim of 'the stick-and-cake'
(ie daṇḍa-apupikā-nyāya)
Arthāpatti was first introduced by Bhoja who was followed by
Ruyyaka, Jayadeva, Viśvanātha Appayya, Jagannatha 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-nyaya).
eg 1. sa jitas tvan mukhenenduḥ / kā vārtā sarasiruhām!
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).
Digitized by
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN