Volume-I, Issue-V, May 2025
Volume-I, Issue-V, May, 2025 |
Received: 19.04.2025 | Accepted: 14.05.2025 | ||
Published Online: 31.05.2025 | Page No: 1183-1191 | ||
DOI: 10.69655/atmadeep.vol.1.issue.05W.120 | |||
সাংখ্য দর্শনে অনুমান প্রমাণ: একটি সংক্ষিপ্ত আলোচনা রোজিনা খাতুন ,গবেষক, দর্শন বিভাগ, বর্ধমান বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়, পশ্চিমবঙ্গ, ভারত |
Inference (Anumāna) as a Means of Knowledge in Sāṅkhya Philosophy: A Brief Discussion Rojina Khatun, Research Scholar, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Burduwan, West Bengal, India | ||
ABSTRACT | ||
The main goal of Indian philosophy is the ultimate cessation of suffering, or liberation, but different philosophical schools have proposed different ways to achieve liberation. For example, the twenty-five principles of Sāṅkhya philosophy acknowledge that the ultimate cessation of suffering comes from the knowledge of the difference between prakṛti and purusha, which is contained in the twenty-five principles. In Sāṅkhya philosophy, each of the twenty-five principles is a subject of knowledge. pramāṇa is needed to establish these knowledge points. Therefore, a discussion of pramāṇa theory is necessary. Although there is disagreement about the number of pramāṇa, all Indian philosophical schools have accepted Perception (Pratyaksha) and have recognized it as the oldest and most powerful of all other pramāṇa. However, not everything can be proven by Pratyaksha, so we have to take the help of other pramāṇa such as Inference (anumāṇa), Verbal Testimony (Śabda) etc. The next pramāṇa of Perception (Pratyaksha) is anumāṇa. In Indian philosophy, anumāṇ a refers to the method of obtaining pramāṇa or true knowledge. And the knowledge obtained through that anumāṇa pramāṇa is called anumiti. This anumiti is a type of prama jñāna. When the term anumāṇa denotes inferential knowledge (anumiti-jñāna), it should be interpreted as employing the suffix anaṭ in the passive sense (bhāva-vācya). Conversely, when anumāṇa signifies anumāṇa as a means of proof, the suffix anaṭ is to be understood in the instrumental sense (karaṇa-vācya). Although there is wide variation in Indian philosophical views on the laksana of anumāṇa, classification of anumāṇa etc., all philosophers, except the Charvākās, unanimously accept that anumāṇa is a distinct proof. Although Ishvarakṛsṇa did not discuss the nature of anumāṇa in detail in his book Sāṃkhyakārikā, Sāṅkhya philosophers before and after him have discussed the nature and classification of anumāṇa in detail. There is a lack of consensus among Sāṅkhya philosophers on the classification of anumāṇa. As there is no scope here to discuss in detail why this is so or whose views are more reasonable, this paper will only discuss the various anumāṇa accepted by Sāṅkhya philosophers. | ||
Keyword :
|