Classical Indian Philosophy Nyaya: The Concept of Vyapti and Inference-Vyapti

Glide to success with Doorsteptutor material for UGC : Get detailed illustrated notes covering entire syllabus: point-by-point for high retention.

Download PDF of This Page (Size: 105K)

Complete Video at – Classical Indian Philosophy Nyaya: Basis Inference - Vyapti (Philosophy)

The Concept of Vyapti

  • Vyapti means a co-relation between two factors, that is one that is pervaded (vyapta) and the other that pervades (vyapika)

  • There are two kinds of Vyapti.

Sama-Vyapti

  • It occurs between two terms of equal extension or concomitance.

  • In other words, in sama-vyapti, we infer one from another and vice-versa.

  • For example, what is knowable is nameable and what is nameable is knowable.

For notes and solved questions with explanations visit doorsteptutor.com

Visama-vyapti:

  • It occurs or it is the relation of two terms of non-equal concomitance.

  • Here, we may infer one from another but not vice-versa.

  • For example, we infer fire from smoke but never vice-versa or we cannot infer smoke from fire.

    • In the school of Buddhism, the concept of universal, invariable relation is accepted. They call the concept of vyapti as avinabhava.

    • According to them the relation of avianbhava is understood as the relation of cause and effect.

    • On the other hand, according to Nyaya and Vedantins, the only reality between two things of un-contradicted experience and not causal or essential identity is known as vyapti.

    • Hence, according to Nyaya, vyapati is the relation between the middle and the major term. It is unconditional and universal in nature.

Classification of Inference on the Basis of Vyapti

Clarification of inference or Anumana on the basis of vyapti is of three kinds;

  • Kevalanvayi Anumana

  • Kevalavyatireki anumana

  • Anvayavyatireki Anumana

Kevalanvayi

  • This inference occurs when the middle term is always positively related to the major term. The two terms agree only in presence and there are no negative instances of their argument in absence.

For example;

  • All men are mortal

  • Ram is a man

  • Therefore, Ram is mortal

Kevalavyatireki Anumana

  • We have this inference when the middle term is the different from the minor term and is always negatively related to the major term.

  • So, the terms agree only in absence.

For example,

  • All knowable objects are nameable

  • The pot is a knowable object.

  • Therefore, the pot is nameable.

Anvayavyatireki Anumana

  • It occurs when the middle term is both positively and negatively related with the major term.

  • In other words, it is called the Double agreement

For example;

  • All things which have smoke have fire

  • The hill has smoke,

  • Therefore, the hill has fire, and

  • No non-fiery things have smoke

  • The hill has smoke

  • Therefore, the thill has fire.

MCQ

1. Vyapti is a relation between

A. Vyapta and Vyaptika

B. Vyapta and Vyapika

C. Vyaka and Vyapari

D. None of these

Answer: B

2. _________ vyapti occurs between two terms of equal extension or concomitance.

A. Sama-vypati

B. Asama-vyapti

C. Visama-vyapti

D. None of these

Answer: A

3. We infer fire from smoke but never vice-versa or we cannot infer smoke from fire, is an example of

A. Sama-vypati

B. Asama-vyapti

C. Visama-vyapti

D. None of these

Answer: C

4. All knowable objects are nameable

The pot is a knowable object.

Therefore, the pot is nameable.

Is an example of?

A. Kevalanvayi

B. Kevalavyatireki

C. Anvayivyatireki

D. Vyapti

Answer: B

#vypati

#Nyaya

#inference

Developed by: