The verse and its meaning · Tattva · Tattva — Tarka-sangraha — Logic in One Sitting

The Hidden Condition

Tarka Sangraha, Anumana 27

सोपाधिको हेतुः व्याप्यत्वासिद्धः । साध्यव्यापकत्वे सति साधनाव्यापकत्वम् उपाधिः । साध्यसमानाधिकरनान्त्यन्ताभावाप्रतियोगित्वं साध्यव्यापकत्वम् । साधनवन्निष्ठात्यन्ताभावप्रतियोगित्वं साधनाव्यापकत्वम् । पर्वतो धूमवान्वह्निमत्वादित्यत्र आर्द्रेन्धनसंयोगः उपाधिः । तथाहि । यत्र धूमस्तत्रार्द्रेन्धनसंयोग इति साध्यव्यापकता । यत्र वह्निस्तत्रार्द्रेन्धनसंयोगो नास्ति अयोगोलके आर्द्रेन्धनसंयोगाभावादिति साधनाव्यापकता । एवं साध्यव्यापकत्वे सति साधनाव्यापकत्वादार्द्रेन्धनसंयोगः उपाधिः । सोपाधिकत्वात् वह्निमत्वं व्याप्यत्वासिद्धम् ॥

Meaning · English

A reason that carries a hidden condition is faulty, for it does not truly pervade what is to be proved. A hidden condition is what pervades the thing to be proved but does not pervade the reason. On the hill with smoke, argued from having fire, the contact of fire with wet fuel is such a condition. Wherever there is smoke, there is wet fuel; but where there is fire, as in a red-hot iron ball, it is absent. So having fire is a faulty reason.

The question: when does a reason fail to prove its claim even though the two often go together? Nyaya, the school of logic, says this happens when a hidden condition, called an upadhi, sits behind the link. An upadhi must do two things. It must accompany every case of the thing to be proved, and it must fail to accompany every case of the reason. The standard example is the argument 'the hill has smoke because it has fire.' The condition is contact of fire with wet fuel. Wherever there is smoke, wet fuel is burning. But a red-hot iron ball has fire and no wet fuel, and gives no smoke. So fire alone does not guarantee smoke. The wet fuel was doing the work. Annambhatta concludes that a reason with such a condition lacks vyapti, the dependable pervasion between reason and conclusion. The Dipika, his own commentary, adds that conditions come in four kinds, and that the wet fuel is the simplest.

1. Next time you notice two things that always seem to come together, such as late nights and a bad mood, write both down on paper. 2. Ask: is there a third thing present in every case of the result, which the first thing does not always bring? Spend two minutes listing candidates, such as hunger or noise. 3. Look for one counter-case, like your red-hot iron ball: the first thing without the result. If you find it, the link is weaker than it looked.

This is close to a familiar point in logic and statistics: a link between two things can be produced by a third. Today this is discussed as confounding, and it is why careful investigators look for the missing factor before trusting a correlation. The iron ball plays the part of a counter-example, which still carries great weight in science and in philosophy generally. Hume's problem of induction asks why past togetherness should license a rule at all. The upadhi does not solve that problem. It gives a practical test for weeding out bad generalisations. Modern formal logic is more austere. It treats a rule as true or false by its cases and has no separate category for a hidden condition. Nyaya's contribution is a named, teachable check inside everyday reasoning.

अर्थ · हिन्दी

In this book

• Before: Reason With No Ground · Tarka Sangraha, Anumana 25
• Next: Time and Direction · Tarka Sangraha, Dravya 6
• All of Tattva · Ask Krishna about it

Sacred Sargam

The sacred texts with their meaning, read aloud, with Ask Krishna, a Panchang and bhajans. Free, on the web and as an app. Open Sacred Sargam