Bhasarvaji’s Definition of Anumana – An Observation

Summary

Bhasarvaji defines inference (anumana) in his *Nyayasara* as an indirect means of knowledge relying on valid invariable concomitance (apavaada). The text presents a debate among commentators over the correct interpretation of the term *g%* in this definition. While some, like Jayasimha Suri, link *g%* to *3Iamrs* (suggesting inference operates through universals), others, such as Raghava Bhatta, argue for *qUrgad* (inferential cognition as a distinct process). V. P. Vaidya critiques the *3Iamrs* interpretation, noting that Bhasarvaji’s own *Nyayabhusana* supports *39UGTIHT* (inference as mediate knowledge). He further asserts that *g%* qualifies *37393* in most definitions but not in inference, where it refutes Carvaka’s denial of inference by emphasizing valid concomitance over perception alone. Vaidya also highlights that Bhasarvaji’s construction aligns with countering Buddhist views, asserting inference’s reliability. Other commentators like Vasudeva and Apararkadeva largely follow Bhasarvaji’s stance, though Apararkadeva acknowledges potential illusions in inference. The discussion underscores the intentional ambiguity in *g%*’s placement to address philosophical objections while maintaining textual coherence.