Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Hetvartha — literally "the purpose (or sense) of a reason" — is defined in three ways that together describe the transferable reason. For Kauṭilya it is "a reason that establishes a matter", illustrated by the clause on which his whole śāstra rests: "for dharma and kāma have artha as their root." For Suśruta it is "what, said of one thing, establishes another": as a lump of clay is softened by water, so a wound is softened by black gram, milk and the like. For Cakrapāṇi it is "what is stated in one place and holds in another": Caraka says of vāta that "repeated use of things of like quality is the cause of increase of the bodily elements", but because he says dhātūnām, "of the elements", the rule is understood to hold for rasa and the rest as well. This article quotes the three definitions, shows that they describe one function at increasing range — the reason that grounds a thesis, the reason that crosses from one domain to another, and the general principle stated in a particular context — and argues through three objections: that hetvartha is only the hetu of the Nyāya syllogism, that Suśruta's example is analogy (upamāna), and that Cakrapāṇi's reading licenses limitless over-generalisation. It concludes that hetvartha is the device by which a text lays down principles that travel, and that its modern counterparts are mechanism-based explanation, external validity, and the transfer of learning. Series: तन्त्रयुक्तिविमर्शः · Tantrayukti Studies, TY-2026/06. Loci: AŚ 15.1.13–14; Su. Utt. 65.11. Online version: https://sanskritmanthan.in/a/ty-06-hetvartha
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Srinivasu Mantha (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: