Indian Philosophy v2.c24.s5.10

v2.c24.s5.10

Gautama distinguishes inference into three kinds : *pūrvavat*, *śeṣavat* and *sāmānyato dṛṣṭam*⁷; and Vātsyāyana offers slightly different explanations of this division, which indicates that even before Vātsyāyana there were conflicting interpretations of the Nyāya aphorisms. In inference we pass from the perceived to the unperceived with which it is related; and this relation may be of three kinds, according as the element to be inferred is either the cause of the element perceived or its effect, or as the two are joint effects of something else. When we see the clouds and expect rain, we have a case of *pūrvavat* inference, where we perceive the antecedent and infer the consequent. It is, however, used to indicate not merely inference from a cause but also inference based on former experience. When we see a river in flood and infer that there was rain, we have a case of śeṣavat inference, where we perceive the consequent and infer the antecedent. It is also used to cover the inference of one member of a pair of correlatives from the other, or inference from a part or from elimination. The inference of the nature of sound as quality is given to illustrate the principle of exclusion or elimination. We prove that sound is not generality, particularity or inherence, not even substance or action, and so conclude that it must be a quality. When we see a horned animal and infer that it has a tail, we have a case of sāmānyatoḍṛṣṭa inference. It is based, not so much on causation, as on uniformity of experience. Uddyotakara agrees with this and gives as an illustration the inference of the existence of water in a particular place from the appearance of cranes. It is also used to indicate inference of supersensible truths (sāmānyato' dṛṣṭa).¹ We perceive the different places of the sun, and infer that the sun must be moving, though we do not see it. Perceiving aversion, affection, etc., we infer the existence of a soul which we do not perceive.²