...Previous
Now, besides these causal conditions which constitute the actual inferential process, the Naiyayikas talk about some other conditions which should be fulfilled before an inferential process can actually make a start. We may call them pre-conditions for an inference. They are the conditions for the possibility of making an inference. These conditions are as follows:
- The paksa (the subject of inferential cognition) must not be known to the inferer to possess the sadhya (the inferable property);6
- The paksa must not be believed by the inferer to possess the absence of sadhya;
- The paksa should not be believed by the inferer to be allegedly characterized by some hetu (inferential mark) having the relation of pervasion with the contradictory of the sadhya (the inferable property).
We find that the three pre-conditions for an inference, which have been mentioned above are negative. The non-fulfilment of any of these negative conditions implies that the corresponding positive condition holds, and in that case the inference cannot take place. Let us see why.
Take the first condition first. Its non-fulfilment means that the paksa p is known to possess the sadhya s. In such a situation there is really no scope or need for making an inference to obtain the knowledge that p has s. The Naiyayikas have, however, conceded that in such a situation if the inferer has a special desire to draw an inference to know the same thing which has been already known, the inference can take place. Normally an inference is made with a view to knowing something which is not already known.
Let us now come to the second condition. The non-fulfilment of this condition implies that the paksa p is believed to possess the absence of sadhya s. Having this belief, viz. p has non-s, the inferer cannot make an inference to reach the conclusion that s has p. Rationality of thought excludes the possibility of such a situation.
The non-fulfilment of the third condition would halt, at least temporarily, the process of inference. For, if the inferer is aware of the supposed presence of some hetu (inferential mark) having the relation of pervasion with the absence of sadhya (the inferable property), in the paksa (the subject of inference), then he/she cannot proceed to infer the presence of the inferable property in the same subject of inference without refuting the alleged possibility of the contradictory conclusion.
So we find that unless the above conditions are fulfilled no inference can take place.
We now come to the conditions for the validity of an inference. In the Nyaya theory of inference, by conditions for validity are meant those conditions which make the inference both legitimate (sat) and, also, a source of knowledge. The Naiyayikas talk about two sets of conditions one to ensure the hetu (inferential mark) is legitimate and the other that the conclusion is true. But actually these two sets of conditions are related in such a way that the fulfilment of the conditions for the legitimacy of the hetu ultimately leads to a true conclusion.
Next..