Back to
inferenceContradicted reason ( बाधित हेतु )
'Fire is not hot, because it is a substance, like water'.
The above argument tries to prove that fire is not hot, by stating that, water, which is a substance like fire, is not hot. But hotness is an inherent property of fire. This can be understood by direct perception, i.e., by touching it. Thus the contradiction of the thing to be proved, is established by some other reason. Such a reasoning is called contradicted reason.
How does this differ from antithetical reasoning? In the above argument, the contradiction is established by direct perception. In the case of antithetical reasoning, we're merely stating that, we can give a counter argument.To put it in a different way, the argument
'Sound is not eternal, because it is a product, like a jar'
also suffers from antithetical reasoning. But if you state that 'Fire is hot', it doesn't suffer from contradicted reason.
The contradicted reason is a result of the basic principle of Tarka Shastra regarding rules of gaining valid knowledge. Tarka Shastra places direct perception and verbal testimony (aagama) above inferential knowledge. Thus the fact that fire is hot, which is obtained by direct perception, is considered to be more valid than the inferential knowledge.
Back to
inference
Home