Reading section 39

331

the causal collocation can be called the primary cause; it is only their joint collocation that can be said to determine the effect, for sometimes the absence of a single element composing the causal collocation is sufficient to stop the production of the effect. Of course the collocation or combination is not an entity separated from the collocated or combined things. But in any case it is the preceding collocations that combine to produce the effect jointly. These involve not only intellectual elements (e.g. indeterminate cognition as qualification (vis'e@sa@na) in determinate perceptions, the knowledge of li@nga in inference, the seeing of similar things in upamâna, the hearing of sound in s'abda) but also the assemblage of such physical things (e.g. proximity of the object of perception, capacity of the sense, light, etc.), which are all indispensable for the origin of knowledge. The cognitive and physical elements all co-operate in the same plane, combine together and produce further determinate knowledge. It is this capacity of the collocations that is called pramâ@na.

Nyâya argues that in the Sâ@mkhya view knowledge originates by the transcendent influence of puru@sa on a particular state of buddhi; this is quite unintelligible, for knowledge does not belong to buddhi as it is non-intelligent, though it contains within it the content and the form of the concept or the percept (knowledge). The puru@sa to whom the knowledge belongs, however, neither knows, nor feels, neither conceives nor perceives, as it always remains in its own transcendental purity. If the transcendental contact of the puru@sa with buddhi is but a mere semblance or appearance or illusion, then the Sâ@mkhya has to admit that there is no real knowledge according to them. All knowledge is false. And since all knowledge is false, the Sâ@mkhyists have precious little wherewith to explain the origin of right knowledge.

There are again some Buddhists who advocate the doctrine that simultaneously with the generation of an object there is the knowledge corresponding to it, and that corresponding to the rise of any knowledge there is the rise of the object of it. Neither is the knowledge generated by the object nor the object by the knowledge; but there is a sort of simultaneous parallelism. It is evident that this view does not explain why knowledge should

332

express or manifest its object. If knowledge and the object are both but corresponding points in a parallel series, whence comes this correspondence? Why should knowledge illuminate the object. The doctrine of the Vijñâna vâdins, that it is knowledge alone that shows itself both as knowledge and as its object, is also irrational, for how can knowledge divide itself as subject and object in such a manner that knowledge as object should require the knowledge as subject to illuminate it? If this be the case we might again expect that knowledge as knowledge should also require another knowledge to manifest it and this another, and so on _ad infinitum_. Again if pramâ@na be defined as _prâpa@na_ (capacity of being realized) then also it would not hold, for all things being momentary according to the Buddhists, the thing known cannot be realized, so there would be nothing which could be called pramâ@na. These views moreover do not explain the origin of knowledge. Knowledge is thus to be regarded as an effect like any other effect, and its origin or production occurs in the same way as any other effect, namely by the joint collocation of causes intellectual and physical [Footnote ref 1]. There is no transcendent element involved in the production of knowledge, but it is a production on the same plane as that in which many physical phenomena are produced [Footnote ref 2].

The four Pramâ@nas of Nyâya.

We know that the Carvâkas admitted perception (_pratyak@sa_) alone as the valid source of knowledge. The Buddhists and the Vais'e@sika admitted two sources, pratyak@sa and inference (_anumâna_); Sâ@mkhya added _s'abda_ (testimony) as the third source;

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Nyâyamañjarî_, pp. 12-26.]

[Footnote 2: Discussing the question of the validity of knowledge Gañges'a, a later naiyâyika of great fame, says that it is derived as a result of our inference from the correspondence of the perception of a thing with the activity which prompted us to realize it. That which leads us to successful activity is valid and the opposite invalid. When I am sure that if I work in accordance with the perception of an object I shall be successful, I call it valid knowledge. _Tattvacintâma@ni_, K. Tarkavâgîs'a's edition, _Prâmâ@nyavâda_.

"The _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ tacitly admit the Vedas as a pramâ@na. The view that Vais'e@sika only admitted two pramâ@nas, perception and inference, is traditionally accepted, _"pratyak@sameka@mcârvâkâ@h ka@nâdasugatau puna@h anumânañca taccâpi,_ etc." Pras'astapâda divides all cognition (_buddhi_) as _vidyâ_ (right knowledge) and _avidyâ_ (ignorance). Under _avidyâ_ he counts _sa@ms'aya_ (doubt or uncertainty), _viparyaya_ (illusion or error), _anadhyavasâya_ (want of definite knowledge, thus when a man who had never seen a mango, sees it for the first time, he wonders what it may be) and _svapna_ (dream). Right knowledge (_vidyâ_) is of four kinds, perception, inference, memory and the supernatural knowledge of the sages (_âr@sa_). Interpreting the _Vais'e@sika sûtras_ I.i. 3, VI. i. 1, and VI. i. 3, to mean that the validity of the Vedas depends upon the trustworthy character of their author, he does not consider scriptures as valid in themselves. Their validity is only derived by inference from the trustworthy character of their author. _Arthâpatti_ (implication) and _anupalabdhi_ (non-perception) are also classed as inference and _upamâna_ (analogy) and _aitihya_ (tradition) are regarded as being the same as faith in trustworthy persons and hence cases of inference.]

333

Nyâya adds a fourth, _upamâna_ (analogy). The principle on which the four-fold division of pramâ@nas depends is that the causal collocation which generates the knowledge as well as the nature or characteristic kind of knowledge in each of the four cases is different. The same thing which appears to us as the object of our perception, may become the object of inference or s'abda (testimony), but the manner or mode of manifestation of knowledge being different in each case, and the manner or conditions producing knowledge being different in each case, it is to be admitted that inference and s'abda are different pramâ@nas, though they point to the same object indicated by the perception. Nyâya thus objects to the incorporation of s'abda (testimony) or upamâna within inference, on the ground that since the mode of production of knowledge is different, these are to be held as different pramâ@nas [Footnote ref 1].

Perception (Pratyak@sa).

The naiyâyikas admitted only the five cognitive senses which they believed to be composed of one or other of the five elements. These senses could each come in contact with the special characteristic of that element of which they were composed. Thus the ear could perceive sound, because sound was the attribute of âkâs'a, of which the auditory sense, the ear, was made up. The eye could send forth rays to receive the colour, etc., of things. Thus the cognitive senses can only manifest their specific objects by going over to them and thereby coming in contact with them. The cognitive senses (_vâk, pâni, pâda, pâyu_, and _upastha_) recognized in Sâ@mkhya as separate senses are not recognized here as such for the functions of these so-called senses are discharged by the general motor functions of the body.

Perception is defined as that right knowledge generated by the contact of the senses with the object, devoid of doubt and error not associated with any other simultaneous sound cognition (such

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1:

_Sâmagrîbhedâi phalabhedâcca pramâ@nabheda@h Anye eva hi sâmagrîphale pratyak@sali@ngayo@h Anye eva ca sâmagrîphale s'abdopamânayo@h. Nyâyamañjari_, p. 33.]

334

as the name of the object as heard from a person uttering it, just at the time when the object is seen) or name association, and determinate [Footnote ref 1]. If when we see a cow, a man says here is a cow, the knowledge of the sound as associated with the percept cannot be counted as perception but as sound-knowledge (_s'abda-pramâ@na_). That right knowledge which is generated directly by the contact of the senses with the object is said to be the product of the perceptual process. Perception may be divided as indeterminate (_nirvikalpa_) and (_savikalpa_) determinate. Indeterminate perception is that in which the thing is taken at the very first moment of perception in which it appears without any association with name. Determinate perception takes place after the indeterminate stage is just passed; it reveals things as being endowed with all characteristics and qualities and names just as we find in all our concrete experience. Indeterminate perception reveals the things with their characteristics and universals, but at this stage there being no association of name it is more or less indistinct. When once the names are connected with the percept it forms the determinate perception of a thing called savikalpa-pratyak@sa. If at the time of having the perception of a thing of which the name is not known to me anybody utters its name then the hearing of that should be regarded as a separate auditory name perception. Only that product is said to constitute nirvikalpa perception which results from the perceiving process of the contact of the senses with the object. Of this nirvikalpa (indeterminate) perception it is held by the later naiyâyikas that we are not conscious of it directly, but yet it has to be admitted as a necessary first stage without which the determinate consciousness could not arise. The indeterminate perception is regarded as the first stage in the process of perception. At the second stage it joins the other conditions of perception in producing the determinate perception. The contact of the sense with the object is regarded as being of six kinds: (1) contact with the dravya (thing) called sa@myoga, (2) contact with the gu@nas (qualities) through the thing (_sa@myukta-samavâya_) in which they inhere in samavâya (inseparable) relation, (3) contact with the gu@nas (such as colour etc.) in the generic character as universals of those qualities, e.g. colourness (rûpatva), which inhere in the gu@nas in the samavâya relation.

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Gañges'a, a later naiyâyika of great reputation, describes perception as immediate awareness (_pratyak@sasya sâk@sâtkâritvam lak@sa@nam_).]

335

This species of contact is called sa@myukta-samaveta-samavâya, for the eye is in contact with the thing, in the thing the colour is in samavâya relation, and in the specific colour there is the colour universal or the generic character of colour in samavâya relation. (4) There is another kind of contact called samavâya by which sounds are said to be perceived by the ear. The auditory sense is âkâs'a and the sound exists in âkâs'a in the samavâya relation, and thus the auditory sense can perceive sound in a peculiar kind of contact called samaveta-samavâya. (5) The generic character of sound as the universal of sound (s'abdatva) is perceived by the kind of contact known as samaveta-samavâya. (6) There is another kind of contact by which negation (_abhâva_) is perceived, namely sa@myukta vis'e@sa@na (as qualifying contact). This is so called because the eye perceives only the empty space which is qualified by the absence of an object and through it the negation. Thus I see that there is no jug here on the ground. My eye in this case is in touch with the ground and the absence of the jug is only a kind of quality of the ground which is perceived along with the perception of the empty ground. It will thus be seen that Nyâya admits not only the substances and qualities but all kinds of relations as real and existing and as being directly apprehended by perception (so far as they are directly presented).

The most important thing about the Nyâya-Vais'e@sika theory of perception is this that the whole process beginning from the contact of the sense with the object to the distinct and clear perception of the thing, sometimes involving the appreciation of its usefulness or harmfulness, is regarded as the process of perception and its result perception. The self, the mind, the senses and the objects are the main factors by the particular kinds of contact between which perceptual knowledge is produced. All knowledge is indeed _arthaprakâs'a,_ revelation of objects, and it is called perception when the sense factors are the instruments of its production and the knowledge produced is of the objects with which the senses are in contact. The contact of the senses with the objects is not in any sense metaphorical but actual. Not only in the case of touch and taste are the senses in contact with the objects, but in the cases of sight, hearing and smell as well. The senses according to Nyâya-Vais`e@sika are material and we have seen that the system does not admit of any other kind of transcendental (_atîndriya_) power (_s'akti_) than that of actual vibratory

336

movement which is within the purview of sense-cognition [Footnote ref 1]. The production of knowledge is thus no transcendental occurrence, but is one which is similar to the effects produced by the conglomeration and movements of physical causes. When I perceive an orange, my visual or the tactual sense is in touch not only with its specific colour, or hardness, but also with the universals associated with them in a relation of inherence and also with the object itself of which the colour etc. are predicated. The result of this sense-contact at the first stage is called _âlocanajñâna_ (sense-cognition) and as a result of that there is roused the memory of its previous taste and a sense of pleasurable character (_sukhasâdhanatvasm@rti_) and as a result of that I perceive the orange before me to have a certain pleasure-giving character [Footnote ref 2]. It is urged that this appreciation of the orange as a pleasurable object should also be regarded as a direct result of perception through the action of the memory operating as a concomitant cause (sahakâri). I perceive the orange with the eye and understand the pleasure it will give, by the mind, and thereupon understand by the mind that it is a pleasurable object. So though this perception results immediately by the operation of the mind, yet since it could only happen in association with sense-contact, it must be considered as a subsidiary effect of sense-contact and hence regarded as visual perception. Whatever may be the successive intermediary processes, if the knowledge is a result of sense-contact and if it appertains to the object with which the sense is in contact, we should regard it as a result of the perceptual process. Sense-contact with the object is thus the primary and indispensable condition of all perceptions and not only can the senses be in contact with the objects, their qualities, and the universals associated with them but also with negation. A perception is erroneous when it presents an object in a character which it does not possess (_atasmi@mstaditi_) and right knowledge (_pramâ_) is that which presents an object with a character which it really has

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1:

_Na khalvatîndriyâ s'aktirasmâbhirupagamyate yayâ saha na kâryyasya sambandhajñânasambhava@h.

Nyâyamañjarî_, p. 69.]

[Footnote 2:

_Sukhâdi manasâ buddhvâ kapitthâdi ca cak@su@sâ tasya karanatâ tatra manasaivâvagamyate... ...Sambandhagraha@nakâle yattatkapitthâdivi@sayamak@sajam jñânam tadupâdeyâdijñânaphalamiti bhâ@syak@rtas'cetasi sthitam sukhasâdhanatvajñânamupâdeyajñânam.

_Nyâyamañjarî_, pp. 69-70; see also pp. 66-71.]

337

(_tadvati tatprakârakânubhava_) [Footnote ref 1]. In all cases of perceptual illusion the sense is in real contact with the right object, but it is only on account of the presence of certain other conditions that it is associated with wrong characteristics or misapprehended as a different object. Thus when the sun's rays are perceived in a desert and misapprehended as a stream, at the first indeterminate stage the visual sense is in real contact with the rays and thus far there is no illusion so far as the contact with a real object is concerned, but at the second determinate stage it is owing to the similarity of certain of its characteristics with those of a stream that it is misapprehended as a stream [Footnote ref 2]. Jayanta observes that on account of the presence of the defect of the organs or the rousing of the memory of similar objects, the object with which the sense is in contact hides its own characteristics and appears with the characteristics of other objects and this is what is meant by illusion [Footnote ref 3]. In the case of mental delusions however there is no sense-contact with any object and the rousing of irrelevant memories is sufficient to produce illusory notions [Footnote ref 4]. This doctrine of illusion is known as _viparîtakhyâti_ or _anyathâkhyâti._ What existed in the mind appeared as the object before us (_h@rdaye parisphurato'rthasya bahiravabhâsanam_) [Footnote ref 5]. Later Vais'e@sika as interpreted by Pras'astapâda and S'rîdhara is in full agreement with Nyâya in this doctrine of illusion (_bhrama_ or as Vais'e@sika calls it _viparyaya_) that the object of illusion is always the right thing with which the sense is in contact and that the illusion consists in the imposition of wrong characteristics [Footnote ref 6].

I have pointed out above that Nyâya divided perception into two classes as nirvikalpa (indeterminate) and savikalpa (determinate) according as it is an earlier or a later stage. Vâcaspati says, that at the first stage perception reveals an object as a particular; the perception of an orange at this _avikalpika_ or _nirvikalpika_ stage gives us indeed all its colour, form, and also the universal of orangeness associated with it, but it does not reveal

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Udyotakara's _Nyâyavârttika_, p. 37, and Ga@nges'a's _Tattvacintâma@ni,_ p. 401, _Bibliotheca Indica_.]

[Footnote 2: "_Indriye@nâlocya marîcîn uccâvacamuccalato nirvikalpena g@rhîtvâ pas'câttatropaghâtado@sât viparyyeti, savikalpako'sya pratyayo bhrânto jâyate tasmâdvijñânasya uvabhicâro nârthasya,_ Vâcaspati's _Tâtparyatîkâ_," p. 87.]

[Footnote 3: _Nyâyamañjarî,_ p. 88.]

[Footnote 4: _Ibid._ pp. 89 and 184.]

[Footnote 5: _Ibid._ p. 184.]

[Footnote 6: _Nyâyakandalî,_ pp. 177-181, "_S'uktisa@myuktenendriye@na do@sasahakârinâ rajatasa@mskârasacivena sâd@rs'yamanurundhatâ s'uktikâvi@sayo rajatâdhyavasâya@h k@rta@h._"]

338

it in a subject-predicate relation as when I say "this is an orange." The avikalpika stage thus reveals the universal associated with the particular, but as there is no association of name at this stage, the universal and the particular are taken in one sweep and not as terms of relation as subject and predicate or substance and attribute (_jâtyâdisvarûpâvagâhi na tu jâtyâdînâ@m mitho vis'e@sa@navis'e@syabhâvâvagâhîti yâvat_) [Footnote ref 1]. He thinks that such a stage, when the object is only seen but not associated with name or a subject-predicate relation, can be distinguished in perception not only in the case of infants or dumb persons that do not know the names of things, but also in the case of all ordinary persons, for the association of the names and relations could be distinguished as occurring at a succeeding stage [Footnote ref 2]. S'rîdhara, in explaining the Vais'e@sika view, seems to be largely in agreement with the above view of Vâcaspati. Thus S'rîdhara says that in the nirvikalpa stage not only the universals were perceived but the differences as well. But as at this stage there is no memory of other things, there is no manifest differentiation and unification such as can only result by comparison. But the differences and the universals as they are in the thing are perceived, only they are not consciously ordered as "different from this" or "similar to this," which can only take place at the savikalpa stage [Footnote ref 3]. Vâcaspati did not bring in the question of comparison with others, but had only spoken of the determinate notion of the thing in definite subject-predicate relation in association with names. The later Nyâya writers however, following Ga@nges'a, hold an altogether different opinion on the subject. With them nirvikalpa knowledge means the knowledge of mere predication without any association with the subject or the thing to which the predicate refers. But such a knowledge is never testified by experience. The nirvikalpa stage is thus a logical stage in the development of perceptual cognition and not a psychological stage. They would

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Tâtparya@tikâ_, p. 81, also _ibid._ p. 91, "_prathamamâlocito'rtha@h sâmânyavis'e@savân._"]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._ p.84, "_tasmâdvyutpannasyâpi nâmadheyasmara@nâya pûrvame@sitavyo vinaiva nâmadheyamarthapratyaya@h._"]

[Footnote 3: _Nyâyakandalî,_p. 189 ff., "_ata@h savikalpakamicchatâ nirvikalpakamapye@sitavyam, tacca na sâmânyamâtram g@rh@nâti bhedasyâpi pratibhâsanât nâpi svalak@sa@namâtram sâmânyâkârasyâpi sa@mvedanât vyaktyantaradars'ane pratisandhânâcca, kintu sâmânya@m vis'e@sañcobhayamapi g@rh@nâti yadi paramida@m sâmânyamayam vis'e@sa@h ityeva@m vivicya na pratyeti vastvantarânusandhânavirahât, pi@ndântarânuv@rttigraha@nâddhi sâmânya@m vivicyate, vyâv@rttigraha@nâdvis'e@soyamiti viveka@h._"]

339

not like to dispense with it for they think that it is impossible to have the knowledge of a thing as qualified by a predicate or a quality, without previously knowing the quality or the predicate (_vis'i@s@tavais'i@styajñânam prati hi vis'e@sa@natâvacchedakaprakâra@m jñâna@m kâra@na@m_) [Footnote ref 1]. So, before any determinate knowledge such as "I see a cow," "this is a cow" or "a cow" can arise it must be preceded by an indeterminate stage presenting only the indeterminate, unrelated, predicative quality as nirvikalpa, unconnected with universality or any other relations (_jâtyâdiyojanârahita@m vais'i@s@tyânavagâhi ni@sprakârakam nirvikalpaka@m_) [Footnote ref 2]. But this stage is never psychologically experienced (_atîndriya_) and it is only a logical necessity arising out of their synthetic conception of a proposition as being the relationing of a predicate with a subject. Thus Vis'vanâtha says in his Siddhântamuktâvalî, "the cognition which does not involve relationing cannot be perceptual for the perception is of the form 'I know the jug'; here the knowledge is related to the self, the knower, the jug again is related to knowledge and the definite content of jugness is related to the jug. It is this content which forms the predicative quality (_vis'e@sa@natâvacchedaka_) of the predicate 'jug' which is related to knowledge. We cannot therefore have the knowledge of the jug without having the knowledge of the predicative quality, the content [Footnote ref 3]." But in order that the knowledge of the jug could be rendered possible, there must be a stage at which the universal or the pure predication should be known and this is the nirvikalpa stage, the admission of which though not testified by experience is after all logically indispensably necessary. In the proposition "It is a cow," the cow is an universal, and this must be intuited directly before it could be related to the particular with which it is associated.

But both the old and the new schools of Nyâya and Vais'e@sika admitted the validity of the savikalpa perception which the Buddhists denied. Things are not of the nature of momentary particulars, but they are endowed with class-characters or universals and thus our knowledge of universals as revealed by the perception of objects is not erroneous and is directly produced by objects. The Buddhists hold that the error of savikalpa perception consists in the attribution of jâti (universal), gu@na (quality),