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 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.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 757-776 |
Number of pages | 20 |
Journal | Journal of Indian Philosophy |
Volume | 44 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 01-09-2016 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Cultural Studies
- Philosophy