Anumana (Inference) MCQ Quiz in मल्याळम - Objective Question with Answer for Anumana (Inference) - സൗജന്യ PDF ഡൗൺലോഡ് ചെയ്യുക

Anumana (Inference):

• It is an important concept of the Nyaya School of Indian Philosophy.
• Here, the prefix ‘anu’ means ‘after’ and ‘māna’ means ‘knowledge’.
• It is a way of drawing inference from prior or existing knowledge. 
• It is a means of arriving at truth not directly but through previous knowledge of concomitance (vyapti) between the major term (sadhya) and the middle term (sadhana). 
• For example, if there is smoke on a hill, our ‘anumana’ would be that there is some fire on the hill. This process of making an Anumana is through ‘vyapti’.
• This inference technique is used in our homes in smoke detectors because it is inferred that if there is smoke there would be fire.
• It can not be a variable relationship because it will be difficult to draw inferences from it.
• For example, the presence of rain invariably means the presence of clouds - vyapti.
• But the presence of the cloud has a variable relationship with the presence of rain because it can not be determined whether clouds will lead to rain.
• Anumana is an accepted means of knowledge by the most schools of knowledge.
• It is accepted in Buddhism, Vaisesika, Samkhya, Yoga and Mimamsa philosophy.

Key Points

Stages of Anumana:

• Anumana, etymologically means ‘secondary proof’.
• The data for inference is derived from perception and verbal testimony.
• There are two main groups of inference and they are as follows.
  • Vyapti: It is when universal relation such as between fire and smoke is known.
  • Paksadharmata: Fire is inferred on the hill, where smoke is perceived in it. 
• The inference is mediate and indirect.
• That is arranged through the medium of some mark which is called ‘hetu’.
• This may be explained with the help of the typical example of inference, the presence of fire on the perception of smoke.
• When one sees smoke on a distant hill one remembers one’s experience of the universal concomitance (Vyapti) between smoke and fire and concludes that there is fire on the distant hill.
• Thus, we can say that:
  • This hill has fire (pratijna)
  • Because it has smoke (hetu)
  • Whatever has smoke has fire, for example, an oven (udaharana)
  • This hill has smoke which is invariably associated with fire (upanaya)
  • Therefore, this hill has fire (nigamana)

​
Thus, the correct sequence of stages of Anumana are pratijna, hetu, udaharana, upanaya, nigamana.

The correct answer is Smoke.
Important Points

In Indian logic, the structure of an inference is often presented in a format known as a syllogism, which consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.

Let's break down the argument you provided:

Major premise: "Smoke is always accompanied by fire." Here, the universally accepted principle or rule is established.

Minor premise: "There is smoke on the distant hill." Here, an observation is made that aligns with the major premise.

Conclusion: "The hill must have fire too." Based on the major and minor premises, a conclusion is inferred.

• In this format, the middle term (hetu) is the reason or cause which is present in both the major premise and the minor premise, linking them together. In this case, it's the presence of "smoke".

Smoke is always accompanied by fire (Major Premise) + There is smoke on the hill (Minor Premise) => Therefore, there must be fire on the hill (Conclusion).

So, the "smoke" is the hetu (middle term) in this argument because it serves as the common term that bridges the major premise with the minor premise to arrive at a conclusion. It's the reason or cause used to infer the presence of fire on the hill. Hence, the correct answer is "Smoke"

The major term is the predicate of the conclusion of a categorical syllogism. The minor term is the subject of the conclusion of a categorical syllogism. The middle term is the term that occurs only in the premises of a categorical syllogism. Key Points

The anumana is of three types –

1. Purvavat Anumana- Karanat Karya Anumana
2. Sheshavat Anumana – Karyat Karana Anumana
3. Samanyato Drushta Anuman.

Important Points

• Purvavat refers to the reasoning obtained from cause to effect.
• Example:- Inferring the flowering (karya) from the rising of clouds (karana), and through seeing a Seed (karana) inferring the Fruiting (karya) are some examles of survival anumana pramana.
• A purvavat inference is that in which we infer the unperceived effect from a perceived cause.
• The inference of future rain from the appearance of dark heavy clouds in the sky is an example of purvavat.

Hence when the middle term is related to the major term (Sadhya) as its cause and is antecedent to it and we pass from the knowledge of the antecedent cause to that of the consequent effect. It is known as Purvavat Anumana.

Additional Information

• Sesavat Anunmana : A sesavat inference is that in which we infer the unperceived cause from a perceived effect. The inference of past rain from the swift muddy current of the river is an example of sesavat.
• Samanyato Drushta: The sAmAnyato drShuTam refers to the inferential knowledge obtained through “generalization of a particulate matter”. Example inference of fire upon seeing the fumes.
• Paratrtha Anumana:  When a person tries to explain his inference of fire from the presence of fumes over the hilly area to another person to make him get the jnana about it, such sort of pramana is denoted by the word parartha anumana pramana.

The correct answer is Upanaya (application)

Nyaya syllogism consists of five members or propositions where four propositions are considered as premises and the fifth one is the conclusion.

Aristotelian Syllogism is the form of inference that consists of the three terms (middle term, minor term, and major term) and categorical propositions.

Key Points 

The syllogism of Nyaya logic contains five propositions which are known as Avayvas.

• The first is Pratijna
• second is Hetu or the reason: 
• The third is Udaharana, or the explanatory example,
• The fourth is upanayana or the application: 
• The fifth is Nigamana or the statement of the conclusion
• Following is an example of it
  • Socrates is mortal (Pratijna).
  • Because he is a man (hetu).
  • Whoever is a man is a mortal, e .g Pythagoras (Udaharana).
  • Socrates is a man who is invariably a mortal (upanaya).
  • Therefore Socrates is mortal (nigamana).
• If we compare it with the Aristotelian syllogism which has only three propositions, we will find that this Nyaya syllogism corresponds has five
• The Udharana (example) is a special feature of the Nyaya syllogism and illustrates the truth that the universal major premise is the result of a real induction based on the law of causation and that induction and deduction cannot be really separated. Again, while in the Aristotelian syllogism the major and the minor terms stand apart in the premises though they are connected by the middle term with each other,
• In the Nyaya syllogism, all three terms stand synthesized in the upanayana.

The correct answer is Upanaya (application)

Nyaya syllogism consists of five members or propositions where four propositions are considered as premises and the fifth one is the conclusion.

Aristotelian Syllogism is the form of inference that consists of the three terms (middle term, minor term, and major term) and categorical propositions.

Key Points 

The syllogism of Nyaya logic contains five propositions which are known as Avayvas.

• The first is Pratijna
• second is Hetu or the reason: 
• The third is Udaharana, or the explanatory example,
• The fourth is upanayana or the application: 
• The fifth is Nigamana or the statement of the conclusion
• Following is an example of it
  • Socrates is mortal (Pratijna).
  • Because he is a man (hetu).
  • Whoever is a man is a mortal, e .g Pythagoras (Udaharana).
  • Socrates is a man who is invariably a mortal (upanaya).
  • Therefore Socrates is mortal (nigamana).
• If we compare it with the Aristotelian syllogism which has only three propositions, we will find that this Nyaya syllogism corresponds has five
• The Udharana (example) is a special feature of the Nyaya syllogism and illustrates the truth that the universal major premise is the result of a real induction based on the law of causation and that induction and deduction cannot be really separated. Again, while in the Aristotelian syllogism the major and the minor terms stand apart in the premises though they are connected by the middle term with each other,
• In the Nyaya syllogism, all three terms stand synthesized in the upanayana.
• The syllogism of nyaya logic contains five propositions which are known as Avayvas. The first is Pratijna or the proposition: the hill is on fire; second is Hetu, or the reason: because it smokes; third is Udaharana, or the explanatory example: whatever shows fire shows smoke, e. g kitchen; fourth is upanaya, or the application: so is this hill; fifth is Nigamana, or the statement of the conclusion: therefore the hill is on fire. Syllogism is a chain of arguments

• Pramana term is commonly found in various Hinduism schools and it means "proof" and "means of knowledge". 
• In Indian philosophies, pramana is the means which can lead to knowledge, and serve as one of the core concepts in Indian epistemology.
• The focus of pramana is how correct knowledge can be acquired, what one already knows, what one doesn't know etc.
• ​There are six types of pramana:

​

Anumana (Inference):

• It is an important concept of the Nyaya School of Indian Philosophy.
• Here, the prefix ‘anu’ means ‘after’ and ‘māna’ means ‘knowledge’.
• It is a way of drawing inference from prior or existing knowledge. 
• It is a means of arriving at truth not directly but through previous knowledge of concomitance (vyapti) between the major term (sadhya) and the middle term (sadhana). 
• For example, if there is smoke on a hill, our ‘anumana’ would be that there is some fire on the hill. This process of making an Anumana is through ‘vyapti’.
• This inference technique is used in our homes in smoke detectors because it is inferred that if there is smoke there would be fire.
• It can not be a variable relationship because it will be difficult to draw inference from it.
• For example, the presence of rain invariably means the presence of clouds - vyapti. But the presence of the cloud has a variable relationship with the presence of rain because it can not be determined whether clouds will lead to rain.
• Anumana is an accepted means of knowledge by most school of knowledge.
• It is accepted in Buddhism, Vaisesika, Samkhya, Yoga and Mimamsa philosophy.

Thus, statements a, c and d are correct.

Sabda (Relying on word):

• ​​Testimony of past or present reliable experts.
• It is based on verbal testimony.
• This means of gaining proper knowledge is either spoken or written, but through Sabda (words).
• The reliability of the source is important, and legitimate knowledge can only come from the Sabda of reliable sources.

Nyaya, (Sanskrit: “Rule” or “Method”) is one of the six systems (darshans) of Indian philosophy, important for its analysis of logic and epistemology. The major contribution of the Nyaya system is its working out in profound detail the means of knowledge known as inference.

Important Points

• Anumana is a Sanskrit word that means “inference” or “knowledge that follows.” It is one of the pramanas, or sources of correct knowledge, in Indian philosophy.
• Anumana is using observation, previous truths, and reason to reach a new conclusion and truth.
• Anumana consists of five steps: a hypothesis (pratijna), reason (hetu), an example (udaharana), reaffirmation (upanayana), and conclusion (nigamana).
• Paksa – The Thesis / Pratijna Proposition, The hill has fire
• Hetu – Reason or the ground, Because it has smoke.
• Drstanta – The corroboration, wherever there is smoke there is fire, as in the kitchen.
• Upanaya – The application, the hill is so.
• Nigamana – the conclusion. Therefore the hill has fire.

​Therefore with the given information, we can conclude that Upanaya of Nyaya Philosophy has all the terms synthesized. 

According to Jainism, there are two types of knowledge: Pramana and Naya.

Key Points

• According to Jaina epistemology, indirect knowledge is of five kinds-Smrti, Pratyabhijna, Tarka, Anumana, and  Agama.
• Smrti is genuine knowledge for Jains since it is the correct form of past perceptions.
• Recognition (pratyabhijna)- This is the synthetic knowledge derived from direct perception and remembrance.
• It contains information such as likeness (samanata), identity (tadatmya), differences (bheda), comparison (Tulana), and so on.
• Logic (Tarka) is the understanding of Vyapti between paksa and sadhya.
• Anuman is the knowledge of sadhya with the help of hetu.
• This inference is either svarthanumana or pararthanumana. The former is the grasp for one’s own self. Hence it needs no amplification. For example, the frequent visibility of fire under smoke together suffices to convince us of their concomitance.
• Afterwards, when we see smoke, we infer the existence of fire also with the help of Vyapti, which is already known to us. It is, svarthanumana. In it the place of smoke is paksa, smoke is paksa dharma.
• In svarthanumana both Vyapti and paksa dharma are essential.
• Pararthanumana is used for convincing others. So it must be more systematized and vivid.
• It is fivefold. In the fivefold Pararthanumana an inference is drawn in five sentences.
• These sentences are called the propositions (avayava) of inference; e.g., (a) Pratijna-The hill is fiery; (b) Hetu-because of smoke; (c) Drstanta- Wherever there is smoke there is fire, such as in the kitchen; (e) Upanaya- The smoke, which does not exist without fire (Vyaptivisistdhum) is in the hill; (f) Nigamana-Therefore the hill is fiery;

According to Jaina epistemology, Inference (anumana) is the understanding of sadhya through the use of hetu.

Thus in Jaina's logic and epistemology, the "knowledge of sadhya with the help of hetu" is called Anumana.

Additional Information

• Jainism offers a unique perspective on knowledge as a state of the soul, not something that can be comprehended and retained by the soul.
• The doctrine of 'The Doctrine of Relativity of Knowledge and Judgments' is promoted by Jainism.
• All knowledge in Jainism is divided into two categories: mediate (paroksa) and immediate (aparoksa).

Anumana Inference occupies a central place in the Hindu school of logic (Nyaya). This school worked out a syllogism in the form of an argument that goes through five stages:

• the proposition (pratijna, literally “promise”),
• the ground (hetu),
• the illustration (udaharana),
• the application (upanaya), and
• the conclusion (nigamana).

Key Points 

Therefore the correct matching code is A-III, B - I, C - II, D - IV

Pramana literally means "proof" and "means of knowledge". It refers to epistemology (theory of knowledge) in Indian philosophies. Hinduism identifies six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths:

1. Pratyakṣa (perception),
2. Anumaṇa (inference),
3. Upamaṇa (comparison and analogy),
4. Arthapatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances),
5. Anupalabdhi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof) and
6. Sabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts).

Anumana: The inference (Anumana) is defined as “a process of reasoning in which we pass from the apprehension of some mark (linga) to that of something else under an invariable relation (vyapti) that exists between them.”

• The expression ‘anumāna’ is conjoined of two terms; ‘anu’ and ‘māna’.
• The word ‘anu’ stands for ‘after’ and ‘māna’ means ‘cognition’.
• So etymologically speaking, ‘anumāna’ (inference) means ‘after cognition’.
• Inference for others consists of five constituents.
  1. This hill has fire (Pratijnā)
  2. Because there is smoke (Hetu)
  3. Wherever there is smoke, there is fire (Udāharana)
  4. This hill has smoke (Upamāna)
  5. Therefore, this hill has fire (Nigamāna)
• Major, minor, and middle terms are used interchangeably as ‘sadhya’, ‘paksa’ and ‘hetu’
  • ‘smoke’ is the middle term,
  • ‘fire’ is the major term
  • ‘Hill’ is the minor term.
• ‘Vyāpti’ relation must subsist between hetu and sādhya. The invariable concomitance between ‘Sadhya’ and ‘Hetu’.

Therefore, option 2 is the correct answer because all three statements are true in the case of Anumana.