2.2.3
Nyāya Sūtra / Adhyāya 2 / 2.2.3
अर्थापत्तिः अप्रमाणमनैकान्तिकत्वात्
arthāpattiḥ apramāṇam anaikāntikatvāt
The line
Postulation is not a means of knowing, because it is not fixed to one conclusion.
नेपालीमा
अर्थापत्ति जान्ने साधन होइन, किनकि त्यो एउटै निष्कर्षमा अडिँदैन।
Where it sits
The argument about postulation continues in the next lines. This sitting is this line. Absence is taken up later, at 2.2.7.
Split: arthāpattiḥ (अर्थापत्तिः) + apramāṇam (अप्रमाणम्) + anaikāntika-tvāt (अनैकान्तिक-त्वात्)
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| arthāpattiḥ (अर्थापत्तिः) | nominative singular, feminine | postulation. A fact supposed so that the facts in hand can stand. |
| apramāṇam (अप्रमाणम्) | nominative singular, neuter | a non-means. Something that is not a pramāṇa (प्रमाण). |
| anaikāntika-tvāt (अनैकान्तिक-त्वात्) | ablative singular, neuter | because of being unfixed. eka-anta (एक-अन्त) is one side. anaikāntika (अनैकान्तिक) does not stay on one side. More than one supposition can fill the same gap. |
The phrases
The fat man who is not seen eating by day can be supposed to eat at night. He can also be supposed to have some other cause of the fatness. The line says that gap is why postulation is not itself a means.
2.2.2 had already placed postulation inside inference. This line gives a further charge: even as a step, it does not force one conclusion.
Sanskrit in this line
arthāpattiḥ (अर्थापत्तिः) is feminine, so the nominative is -iḥ (-इः). apramāṇam (अप्रमाणम्) is neuter and keeps its own ending. tvāt (त्वात्) is the ablative of the abstract -tva (-त्व), 'the state of being that.' anaikāntika (अनैकान्तिक) is an (अन्) + eka (एक) + anta (अन्त).
Say it back
Gloss anaikāntikatvāt (अनैकान्तिकत्वात्) as the reason, and say what eka-anta (एक-अन्त) is.