Anyonyashraya is the fallacy of mutual dependence in Hindu philosophical discourse. Anyonyasraya is classified as form of tarka (hypothetical argument). Anyonya Abhava means reciprocal negation or mutual non-existence, whereas Anyonyashraya means mutual dependence.
Tarka means deliberation on an unknown thing to discern its
real nature. It involves seeking reasons in favor of some suppositions to the exclusion
of other suppositions. Philosophers resort to tarka when there is a doubt about
the specific nature of a thing. According to logicians, there are five kinds of
tarka –
- Self-dependence
- Mutual-dependence
- Circularity
- Infinite regress
- Indirect proof
In all these, the logical structure and the nature of the argument
are the same; and the aim is to help verify to validity of an argument.
Anyonyashraya reveals the fallacy of an argument wherein two
phenomena are mutually dependent on each other. For example, if A depends on B
and B depends on A; then, to know A we need to know B and vice versa.
An example culled from the Advaita (Non-dualist) refutation
of a Mimamsa (ritualist) standpoint, would be as follows –
The ritualists aver that only injunctions are valid, since
the subject matter of scripture is action (Purva Mimamsa). The Advaitin replies,
that this argument involves mutual dependence. The only way to prove that Vedas
have only actions as their subject matter is to posit that only injunctive statements
are valid, but the only way to prove that only injunctive statements are valid
is to assume that Vedas have only actions as their subject matter.