AKIHIKO AKAMATSU

THE TWO KINDS OFANUM�ANA IN BHARTR. HARI’SV�AKYAPAD�IYA

In his V�akyapad�ıya, Bhartr.hari uses the word ‘anum�ana’ 13 times. Inmost cases it is employed in emphasizing indirectness or incompletenessof a cognition.1 It seems that no technical definition is presupposed whenBhartr.hari uses this word.K�arik�a 189 of the secondK�an. d. a, however,is the only place in theV�akyapad�ıya where the term ‘anum�ana’ has atechnical meaning.K�arik�a 2.189 runs as follows:

sth�adibhih. kevalair yac ca gaman�adi na gamyate/tatr�anum�an�ad dvividh�at taddharm�a pr�adir ucyate//

[The verb ‘prasth�a-’ means ‘to set out’,] but [the meaning of] ‘going’ is not understoodfrom the isolated root ‘sth�a-’. In this case, it is said that [the prefix] ‘pra-’ is theconveyer of [the meaning of] ‘going’, on the basis of the two kinds ofanum�ana.

This k�arik�a represents the view that the prefixes including ‘pra-’ andothers reveal the meaning that also is possessed potentially by the root;they aredyotaka. The point of importance is that Bhartr.hari refers to thetwo kinds ofanum�ana in this verse. As far as I know, Bhartr.hari makesno explicit statement about the twofold distinction ofanum�ana in anyother place in hisV�akyapad�ıya. His silence corresponds to the fact thatthis k�arik�a was propounded on the presupposition that everyone knewabout the two kinds ofanum�ana. Now, taking this into account, wecan ask the following question: Whichanum�anasdoes Bhartr.hari havein mind when he puts forward this view? To answer this question weshall investigate theVr. tti. TheVr. tti on thisk�arik�a runs as follows:2

In one case a conclusion is drawn by thedr.s. t.am anum�anam, in another case bythe s�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anam. Between the two, [the former is as follows:] Theprefix ‘pra-’ in this verb ‘prasth�a-’ was seen before in some other verb being ableto reveal the meaning of ‘the beginning of an action’. [From this experienced fact,]it follows that it (the prefix ‘pra-’) now in this case also has the same meaning.On the other hand, [the latter is as follows:] It is well known that among all theother verbs roots of the same kind have several different meanings. Then, in thiscase of the verb ‘prasth�a-’, it follows that the root ‘sth�a-’ also is the conveyer ofthe meaning of ‘going to another place’, which is not perceptible.

The main point of this argument is that the prefix ‘pra-’ can revealthe sense which the verbal root ‘sth�a’ has potentially. There are two

Journal of Indian Philosophy27: 17–22, 1999.c 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

18 AKIHIKO AKAMATSU

facts to be inferred: First the fact that the prefix ‘pra-’ one sees atpresent can reveal the meaning that is not expressed directly by theverbal root ‘sth�a-’; secondly the fact that the verbal root has such animperceptible meaning. Thus in accordance with these two facts, twokinds of anum�ana are required:dr.s. t.am anum�anamand s�am�anyatodr.s. t.am anum�anam.

I shall clarify the logical structure of eachanum�ana as far as Iunderstand from theVr. tti. The structure of thedr.s. t.am anum�anamisas follows: In order to draw the conclusion that the prefix ‘pra-’ onesees at present in the verb ‘prasth�a-’ has such and such a property, oneadduces other instances of the very same kind, namely other prefixes‘pra-’ which we have experienced as having the same property. Thes�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anam, on the other hand, is as follows: On theground that all verbal roots have several different meanings, one deducesthe conclusion that this ‘sth�a-’ too has several meanings, and one ofthese meanings is ‘going to another place’, although it is imperceptible.

Since the former argument is simple inductive reasoning, the contentsare easy to understand. About the latter, however, the question has to beanswered as to how it is possible to conclude that the root ‘sth�a-’ has theparticular meaning of ‘going to another place.’ Logically speaking, theconclusion to be drawn from the fact that all observed verbal roots haveseveral meanings is only that the root ‘sth�a-’ has several meanings. Butif this is the logical structure of the latter, this inference should not beany different from thedr.s. t.am anum�anam, and the twofold distinction ofanum�ana would be meaningless. What characterization did Bhartr.hari(or Vr.ttik�ara) have in mind for thes�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anam, whenhe declared “it follows that the root ‘sth�a-’ also is the conveyer of themeaning of ‘going to another place’, which is not perceptible”?

We know of the two kinds ofanum�ana mentioned inother texts such as V�ars.agan.ya’s S. as. t. itantra or Pra�sastap�ada’sPad�arthadharmasam. graha. According to Frauwallner (1958),V�ars.agan.ya’s classifications arevi�ses.ato dr.s. t.am anum�anam ands�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anam.3 As is well known, on the other hand,Pra�sastap�ada propounded the twofold distinction ofdr.s. t.am anum�anamands�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anam. Pra�sastap�ada’s classification termi-nologically accords with Bhartr.hari’s. The text runs as follows:4

Now the anum�ana is of two kinds:dr.s. t.am and s�am�anyato dr.s. t.am. Between the two,where the thing known and the thing to be inferred are of absolutely the same kind,the inference isdr.s. t.am anum�anam; for instance, we have experience of just thedewlap only with the cow, we then have the cognition of a cow also at some otherplace on account of seeing only the dewlap. Where the thing known and the thing tobe inferred are of absolutely different kinds, the inference is based on the similarity

THE TWO KINDS OF ANUM�ANA 19

which the li _nga and theanumeyadharmahave in common with those entities, and itis s�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anam. For example, we have experienced that the activityof farmers, merchants, and officials has results, we then infer that hermits or asceticswho are performing religious activities without envisaging any observable result willachieve some result.5

In the case of thedr.s. t.am anum�anamof thePad�arthadharmasam. graha,like the Vr. tti, the conclusion is inferred from other instances of thevery same kind which we have experienced. Thes�am�anyato dr.s. t.amanum�anam, on the other hand, seems to be the following kind ofinference: From the presupposition that our worldly acts have someresults, one draws the conclusion that a religious act has some resultbecause it has the similarity with worldly acts of being an act. Accordingto �Sr�ıdhara, however, what is to be inferred is not that a religious acthas some result, but that it has a special kind of result like rebirth inheaven (svarga).

Taking notice of this point, Nenninger (1994) has argued thus:“The anumeyadharma, however, must be determined as the propertyof having unobservable fruits as otherwise this inference would notbe any different from thedr.s. t.am anum�anam. But no interpretationcan be accepted which does not allow for any difference between thetwo kinds ofanum�ana, for this would blur the very gist of the wholediscussion” (p. 824, footnote 14). Discussing the difference between thedr.s. t.am anum�anamands�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anamin Pra�sastap�ada’sPad�arthadharmasam. graha, Nenninger points out the imperceptibilityof the entity to be inferred as the characteristic of thes�am�anyato dr.s. t.amanum�anam.6

With this in mind we turn to Bhartr.hari’s V�akyapad�ıya. The problemto be discussed here is whether thes�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anamofBhartr.hari (or of Vr.ttik�ara) is the same as that of Pra�sastap�ada. DidBhartr.hari admit of thes�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anamthe characterizationof having the imperceptibility of the thing to be inferred? In fact,Bhartr.hari (or Vr.ttik�ara) notes the unobservability of the fact to beinferred, namely the fact that the root ‘prasth�a-’ has the meaning of‘going to another place,’ in his example mentioned above, but we shallfind another example in theVr. tti on k�arik�a 2.196.

In k�arik�as 192–196 of the secondK�an. d. a, Bhartr.hari discusses theproblem of the particles (nip�ata), including the particle ‘and’ (c�adayah. ).One maintains that the particle ‘ca’ is dyotakaon the ground of (1)s.as. thya�sravan. atva, (2) asattvavacanatvaand (3) gun. �a�sravan. atva.Vr.ttik�ara makes an objection against this argument by indicatingthe impossibility of suchanum�ana and concludes as follows: “theses.as. t.ya�sravan. a, etc. are the logical reasons of the argument for the

20 AKIHIKO AKAMATSU

contrary on the ground of thes�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anam”.7 In thiscase ofs�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anamVr.ttik�ara’s description suggestsits interpretation as a kind of cognition on the basis of a similarity.Especially in the case of (2), Vr.ttik�ara draws the conclusion that theparticle ‘ca’ can not bedyotakaon the ground that the verbs, which areof same kind with the particles because of havingasattvavacanatva,are notdyotakasbut v�acakasof bh�ava.8

What is clear is that Vr.ttik�ara emphasizes the similarity betweenthe thing known and the thing to be inferred, but he does not referto the imperceptibility of the thing to be inferred. Even if one grantsNenninger’s view that thes�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anamis a kind ofanalogical reasoning which “comes into play when some entity has tobe inferred which is imperceptible by its very nature” (1994: p. 826),this is so in the case of Pra�sastap�ada’sPad�arthadharmasam. graha, andit seems that Bhartr.hari (orVr. ttik�ara) understood thes�am�anyato dr.s. t.amanum�anammainly from the point of view of the cognition on the basisof a similarity.

The aim of the present paper is to make clear how Bhartr.hari charac-terized inference (anum�ana) when he put forward the two kinds ofanum�ana. The problem ofanum�anamay not be important for Bhartr.hari.Although it is evident that he countedanum�anaamong thepram�an. as,9

he considered it as indirect and incomplete cognition in comparisonwith �agama. Accordingly it is useless to attempt to estimate his view inthe history of Indian logic. Finally, however, we can ask the followingquestion: From where did Bhartr.hari borrow the twofold distinction ofanum�ana?

As is well known, Bhartr.hari lived and worked before Dign�aga andPra�sastap�ada. Now we must recall a passage of Dign�aga translated byFrauwallner (1968). It runs as follows: “Der Vr.ttik�ara [= Bhavad�asa]vertritt im allgemeinen die Lehre des Vai�ses.ika von der Schlußfolgerung,da er Sehen (dr.s. t.am) und Sehen dem Gemeinsamen nach (s�am�anyatodr.s. t.am) usw. unterscheidet” (p. 87). It is probable that Bhartr.harialso borrowed the view on the two kinds ofanum�ana from the earlyVai�ses.ika system. Bronkhorst (1993) has noted some possible linksbetween Bhartr.hari’s V�akyapad�ıya and the early Vai�ses.ika; we can seethe same possibility in Bhartr.hari’s view onanum�ana.

NOTES

1 I completed a translation into Japanese of theV�akyapad�ıya of Bhartr.hari whichwas recently published in two volumes (Akamatsu 1998a and 1998b) by Heibonsha,Toyo-Bunko. On that occasion I examined the vocabulary of Bhartr.hari. Words

THE TWO KINDS OF ANUM�ANA 21

related toanum�ana occur in the following places. 1.anum�ana: 1st k�an. d. a, k�arik�a32c; 36a; 38d; 42c; 177a;Vr. tti 10.3; 43.8; 85.2; 89.5; 91.1; 92.4; 96.3(2 times);96.4; 97.9; 99.2; 128.7; 198.8; 232.9. 2ndk�an. d. a, k�arik�a 189c; 328c; 371c; 372a,c:Vr. tti 225.3; 225.5; 225.11; 234.12(2 times); 236.11; 236.15; 236.18; 236.22; 237.2;246.7; 250.4; 251.18; 254.13; 280.25; 284.5; 284.13; 284.18; 284.20; 284.22; 284.24;284.25; 284.28; 291.4; 292.23; 313.20. 3rdk�an. d. a, k�arik�a 158a; 307c; 341d; 681a,d; 898c. 2.anum�ıyate: 1st k�an. d. a, Vr. tti 57.2. 2ndk�an. d. a, k�arik�a 86b; 156d; 353b:Vr. tti 225.11; 239.18; 246.16; 274.20; 275.26; 284.20; 286.1; 286.3; 286.6; 287.7;288.11; 288.15; 293.1; 309.14; 325.3. 3rdk�an. d. a, k�arik�a 1084b,d; 1160d. 3.anumita:1st k�an. d. a, k�arik�a 34a: Vr. tti 43.11. 2ndk�an. d. a, Vr. tti 225.9. 3rdk�an. d. a, k�arik�a 218b.4. anumeya: 1st k�an. d. a, Vr. tti 65.2; 223.1. 2ndk�an. d. a, k�arik�a 46a: Vr. tti 212.4, 282.9;284.16; 294.20; 317.9. 3rdk�an. d. a, k�arik�a 483c. 5.anum�atum: 2nd k�an. d. a, Vr. tti 245.1.6. �anum�anika: 1st k�an. d. a, k�arik�a 35d. 7.anum�anapaks.a / pratyaks.apaks.a: 1st k�an. d. a,Vr. tti 72.2; 222.6–7; 233.3–4. 2ndk�an. d. a, Vr. tti 254.12.2 Vr. tti 234.12–16: kvacid dr.s.t.en�anum�anena vyavasth�a kriyate / kvacit s�am�anyatodr.s.t.en�anum�anena / tatra pratis.t.hata ity atra pra�sabdo ’nyatr�adikarmadyotanedr.s.t.as�amarthyah. , sa ih�api tadartha ev�avas�ıyate / anyes.�am. ca kriy�avacan�an�amanek�arthatvam. tulyadharm�an.�am. dh�at�un�am. prasiddham iti tis.t.hater apy adr.s.t.am.vis.ay�antaregatyarth�abhidh�ayitvam. pratis.t.hata ity atra vyavasht�apyate //3 Frauwallner (1958), pp. 125–128. Pun.yar�aja, in his commentary on this k�arik�a2.189, mentions the twofold distinction ofvi�ses.ato dr.s. t.am anum�anamand s�am�anyatodr.s. t.am anum�anam. But we can not find the influence of the V�ars.agan.ya’s theory inhis interpretation.4 Pra�sastap�adabh�as.yam 507.1–509.3: tat tu dvividham – dr.s.t.am. s�am�anyatodr.s.t.am.ca / tatra dr.s.t.am prasiddhas�adhyayor atyantaj�atyabhede ’num�anam / yath�a gavyeva s�asn�am�atram upalabhya de�s�antare ‘pi s�asn�am�atradar�san�ad gavi pratipattih. /prasiddhas�adhyayor atyantaj�atibhede li_ng�anumeyadharmas�am�any�anuvr.ttito ‘num�anam.s�am�anyatodr.s.t.am / yath�a kars.akavan. igr�ajapurus.�an.�am. ca pravr.tteh. phalavattvam upalab-hya varn.�a�sramin.�am api dr.s.t.am. prayojanam anuddi�sya pravartam�an�an�am. phal�anum�anamiti /5 Cf. Interpretation and translation of Nenninger (1994), pp. 822–824.6 Nenninger (1994), p. 826.7 Vr. tti 237.2–3: s.as.t.hya�sravan.�adaya�s ca s�am�anyato dr.s.t.en�anum�anena v�acakavi-par�ıt�ah. /8 Vr. tti 236.14–15: tath�a asattvabh�uto bh�avas ti_npadair abhidh�ıyata eva / tasm�adasattvavacanam api dyotakatve n�anum�anam iti//9 Cf. Aklujkar (1989).

REFERENCES

Akamatsu, Akihiko (1998a). Koten Indo no Gengotetsugaku (The Philosphy ofLanguage in Classical India). Vol. 1. [Translation and Annotation of the FirstK�an. d. a of Bhartr.hari’s V�akyapad�ıya with the Vr. tti, in Japanese.] Tokyo: Heibonsha.

Akamatsu, Akihiko (1998b). Koten Indo no Gengotetsugaku. Vol. 2. [Translation andAnnotation of the SecondK�an. d. a and of Kriy �asamudde�sa, in Japanese.] Tokyo:Heibonsha.

Aklujkar, Ashok (1989). ‘The Number of Pram�an.as according to Bhartr.hari’, WienerZeitschrift f�ur die Kunde S�udasiens33: 151–158.

Bronkhorst, Johannes (1993). ‘Studies on Bhartr.hari, 5: Bhartr.hari and Vai�ses.ika’,Asiatische Studien/�Etudes AsiatiquesXLVII–1: 75–94.

22 AKIHIKO AKAMATSU

Frauwallner, E. (1958). ‘Die Erkenntnislehre Klassischen S�am. khya-Systems’,WienerZeitschrift f�ur die Kunde S�ud– und Ostasiens2: 84–139.

Frauwallner, E. (1968). Materialien zur�Altesten Erkenntnislehre derKarmam�ım�am. s�a.Wien: �Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Jh�a, Durg�adhara. (1977).Pra�sastap�adabh�as.ya (Pad�arthadharmasa_ngraha). WithcommentaryNy�ayakandal�ı by �Sr�ıdhara Bhatta along with Hindi Translation.Varanasi: Ga_ng�an�athajh�a-Grantham�al�a.

Nenninger, Claudius (1994). ‘s�am�anyato dr.s. t.am anum�anam– Analogical Reasoning inEarly Ny�aya-Vai�ses. ika’, Asiatische Studien/�Etudes AsiatiquesXLVIII–2: 819–832.

Rau, Wilhelm (1977).Bhartr.haris V�akyapad�ıya: Die M�ulak�arik�as nach den Hand-schriften herausgegeben und mit einem P�ada-Index versehen von Wilhelm Rau.Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.

Subramania Iyer, K. A. (1966).V�akyapad�ıya of Bhartr.hari with the CommentariesVr.tti and Paddhati of Vr.s.abhadeva, K�an.d.a I. Poona: Deccan College.

Subramania Iyer, K. A. (1983).The V�akyapad�ıya of Bhartr.hari, K�an.d.a II. With theCommentary of Pun.yar�aja and the ancient Vr.tti. Foreword by Ashok Aklujkar.Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Faculty of LettersKyushu UniversityFukuoka 811–8581Japan