Reading section 40

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Tattvacintâma@ni_ p. 812.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid_. p. 809.]

[Footnote 3: _Siddhântamuktâvalî_ on _Bhâ@sâpariccheda kârikâ_, 58.]

340

kriyâ (action), nâma (name), and dravya (substance) to things [Footnote ref 1]. The universal and that of which the universal is predicated are not different but are the same identical entity. Thus the predication of an universal in the savikalpa perception involves the false creation of a difference where there was none. So also the quality is not different from the substance and to speak of a thing as qualified is thus an error similar to the former. The same remark applies to action, for motion is not something different from that which moves. But name is completely different from the thing and yet the name and the thing are identified, and again the percept "man with a stick" is regarded as if it was a single thing or substance, though "man" and "stick" are altogether different and there is no unity between them. Now as regards the first three objections it is a question of the difference of the Nyâya ontological position with that of the Buddhists, for we know that Nyâya and Vais'e@sika believe jâti, gu@na and kriyâ to be different from substance and therefore the predicating of them of substance as different categories related to it at the determinate stage of perception cannot be regarded as erroneous. As to the fourth objection Vâcaspati replies that the memory of the name of the thing roused by its sight cannot make the perception erroneous. The fact that memory operates cannot in any way vitiate perception. The fact that name is not associated until the second stage through the joint action of memory is easily explained, for the operation of memory was necessary in order to bring about the association. But so long as it is borne in mind that the name is not identical with the thing but is only associated with it as being the same as was previously acquired, there cannot be any objection to the association of the name. But the Buddhists further object that there is no reason why one should identify a thing seen at the present moment as being that which was seen before, for this identity is never the object of visual perception. To this Vâcaspati says that through the help of memory or past impressions (_sa@mskâra_) this can be considered as being directly the object of perception, for whatever may be the concomitant causes when the main cause of sense-contact is

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Nyâyamañjarî_, pp. 93-100, "_Pañca caite kalpanâ bhavanti jâtikalpanâ, gu@nakalpanâ, kriyâkalpanâ, nâmakalpanâ dravyakalpanâ ceti, tâs'ca kvacidabhede'pi bhedakalpanât kvacicca bhede'pyabhedakalpanât kalpanâ ucyante._" See Dharmakîrtti's theory of Perception, pp. 151-4. See also pp. 409-410 of this book.]

341

present, this perception of identity should be regarded as an effect of it. But the Buddhists still emphasize the point that an object of past experience refers to a past time and place and is not experienced now and cannot therefore be identified with an object which is experienced at the present moment. It has to be admitted that Vâcaspati's answer is not very satisfactory for it leads ultimately to the testimony of direct perception which was challenged by the Buddhists [Footnote ref 1]. It is easy to see that early Nyâya-Vais'e@sika could not dismiss the savikalpa perception as invalid for it was the same as the nirvikalpa and differed from it only in this, that a name was associated with the thing of perception at this stage. As it admits a gradual development of perception as the progressive effects of causal operations continued through the contacts of the mind with the self and the object under the influence of various intellectual (e.g. memory) and physical (e.g. light rays) concomitant causes, it does not, like Vedânta, require that right perception should only give knowledge which was not previously acquired. The variation as well as production of knowledge in the soul depends upon the variety of causal collocations.

Mind according to Nyâya is regarded as a separate sense and can come in contact with pleasure, pain, desire, antipathy and will. The later Nyâya writers speak of three other kinds of contact of a transcendental nature called _sâmânyalak@sa@na, jñânalak@sa@na_ and _yogaja_ (miraculous). The contact sâmânyalak@sa@na is that by virtue of which by coming in contact with a particular we are transcendentally (_alaukika_) in contact with all the particulars (in a general way) of which the corresponding universal may be predicated. Thus when I see smoke and through it my sense is in contact with the universal associated with smoke my visual sense is in transcendental contact with all smoke in general. Jñânalak@sa@na contact is that by virtue of which we can associate the perceptions of other senses when perceiving by any one sense. Thus when we are looking at a piece of sandal wood our visual sense is in touch with its colour only, but still we perceive it to be fragrant without any direct contact of the object with the organ of smell. The sort of transcendental contact (_alaukika sannikar@sa_) by virtue of which this is rendered

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Tâtparya@tîkâ_, pp. 88-95.]

342

possible is called jñânalak@sa@na. But the knowledge acquired by these two contacts is not counted as perception [Footnote ref l].

Pleasures and pains (_sukha_ and _du@hkha_) are held by Nyâya to be different from knowledge (jñâna). For knowledge interprets, conceives or illumines things, but sukha etc. are never found to appear as behaving in that character. On the other hand we feel that we grasp them after having some knowledge. They cannot be self-revealing, for even knowledge is not so; if it were so, then that experience which generates sukha in one should have generated the same kind of feeling in others, or in other words it should have manifested its nature as sukha to all; and this does not happen, for the same thing which generates sukha in one might not do so in others. Moreover even admitting for argument's sake that it is knowledge itself that appears as pleasure and pain, it is evident that there must be some differences between the pleasurable and painful experiences that make them so different, and this difference is due to the fact that knowledge in one case was associated with sukha and in another case with du@hkha, This shows that sukha and du@hkha are not themselves knowledge. Such is the course of things that sukha and du@hkha are generated by the collocation of certain conditions, and are manifested through or in association with other objects either in direct perception or in memory. They are thus the qualities which are generated in the self as a result of causal operation. It should however be remembered that merit and demerit act as concomitant causes in their production.

The yogins are believed to have the pratyak@sa of the most distant things beyond our senses; they can acquire this power by gradually increasing their powers of concentration and perceive the subtlest and most distant objects directly by their mind. Even we ourselves may at some time have the notions of future events which come to be true, e.g. sometimes I may have the intuition that "To-morrow my brother will come,"

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1:_Siddhântamuktâvalî_ on _Kârikâ_ 63 and 64. We must remember that Ga@nges'a discarded the definition of perception as given in the _Nyâya sûtra_ which we have discussed above, and held that perception should be defined as that cognition which has the special class-character of direct apprehension. He thinks that the old definition of perception as the cognition generated by sense-contact involves a vicious circle (_Tattvacintâma@ni_, pp. 538-546). Sense-contact is still regarded by him as the cause of perception, but it should not be included in the definition. He agrees to the six kinds of contact described first by Udyotakara as mentioned above.]

343

and this may happen to be true. This is called pratibhânajñâna, which is also to be regarded as a pratyak@sa directly by the mind. This is of course different from the other form of perception called mânasa-pratyak@sa, by which memories of past perceptions by other senses are associated with a percept visualized at the present moment; thus we see a rose and perceive that it is fragrant; the fragrance is not perceived by the eye, but the manas perceives it directly and associates the visual percept with it. According to Vedânta this acquired perception is only a case of inference. The prâtibha-pratyak@sa however is that which is with reference to the happening of a future event. When a cognition is produced, it is produced only as an objective cognition, e.g. This is a pot, but after this it is again related to the self by the mind as "I know this pot." This is effected by the mind again coming in contact for reperception of the cognition which had already been generated in the soul. This second reperception is called anuvyavasâya, and all practical work can proceed as a result of this anuvyavasâya [Footnote ref. l].

Inference.

Inference (_anumâna_) is the second means of proof (prâmâ@na) and the most valuable contribution that Nyâya has made has been on this subject. It consists in making an assertion about a thing on the strength of the mark or liñga which is associated with it, as when finding smoke rising from a hill we remember that since smoke cannot be without fire, there must also be fire in yonder hill. In an example like this smoke is technically called liñga, or hetu. That about which the assertion has been made (the hill in this example) is called pak@sa, and the term "fire" is called sâdhya. To make a correct inference it is necessary that the hetu or liñga must be present in the pak@sa,

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: This later Nyâya doctrine that the cognition of self in association with cognition is produced at a later moment must be contrasted with the _triputîpratyak@sa_ doctrine of Prabhâkara, which holds that the object, knower and knowledge are all given simultaneously in knowledge. Vyavasâya (determinate cognition), according to Ga@nges'a, gives us only the cognition of the object, but the cognition that I am aware of this object or cognition is a different functioning succeeding the former one and is called anu (after) vyavasâya (cognition), "_idamaha@m jânâmîti vyavasâye na bhâsate taddhakendriyasannikar@sâbhâvât kintvida@mvi@sayakajñânatvavis'i@s@tasya jñânasya vais'i@styamâtmani bhâsate; na ca svaprakâs'e vyavasâya tâd@rs'a@m svasya vais'i@s@tya@m bhâsitumarhati, pûrva@m vis'e@sa@nasya tasyâjñânât, tasmâdidamaha@m jânâmiti na vyavasâya@h kintu anuvyavasâyah." _Tattvacintâma@ni_, p. 795.]

344

and in all other known objects similar to the pak@sa in having the sâdhya in it (sapak@sa-sattâ), i.e., which are known to possess the sâdhya (possessing fire in the present example). The liñga must not be present in any such object as does not possess the sâdhya (_vipak@sa-vyâv@rtti_ absent from vipak@sa or that which does not possess the sâdhya). The inferred assertion should not be such that it is invalidated by direct perception {_pratyak@sa_) or the testimony of the s'âstra (_abâdhita-vi@sayatva_). The liñga should not be such that by it an inference in the opposite way could also be possible (_asat-pratipak@sa_). The violation of any one of these conditions would spoil the certitude of the hetu as determining the inference, and thus would only make the hetu fallacious, or what is technically called hetvâbhâsa or seeming hetu by which no correct inference could be made. Thus the inference that sound is eternal because it is visible is fallacious, for visibility is a quality which sound (here the pak@sa) does not possess [Footnote ref l]. This hetvâbhâsa is technically called _asiddha-hetu_. Again, hetvâbhâsa of the second type, technically called _viruddha-hetu_, may be exemplified in the case that sound is eternal, since it is created; the hetu "being created" is present in the opposite of sâdhya {_vipak@sa_), namely non-eternality, for we know that non-eternality is a quality which belongs to all created things. A fallacy of the third type, technically called _anaikântika-hetu_, is found in the case that sound is eternal, since it is an object of knowledge. Now "being an object of knowledge" (_prameyatva_) is here the hetu, but it is present in things eternal (i.e. things possessing sâdhya), as well as in things that are not eternal (i.e. which do not possess the sâdhya), and therefore the concomitance of the hetu with the sâdhya is not absolute (_anaikântika_). A fallacy of the fourth type, technically called _kâlâtyayâpadi@s@ta_, may be found in the example--fire is not hot, since it is created like a jug, etc. Here pratyak@sa shows that fire is hot, and hence the hetu is fallacious. The fifth fallacy, called _prakara@nasama_, is to be found in cases where opposite hetus are available at the same time for opposite conclusions, e.g. sound like a jug is non-eternal,

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: It should be borne in mind that Nyâya did not believe in the doctrine of the eternality of sound, which the Mîmâ@msâ did. Eternality of sound meant with Mîmâ@msâ the theory that sounds existed as eternal indestructible entities, and they were only manifested in our ears under certain conditions, e.g. the stroke of a drum or a particular kind of movement of the vocal muscles.]

345

since no eternal qualities are found in it, and sound like âkâs'a is eternal, since no non-eternal qualities are found in it.

The Buddhists held in answer to the objections raised against inference by the Cârvâkas, that inferential arguments are valid, because they are arguments on the principle of the uniformity of nature in two relations, viz. _tâdâtmya_ (essential identity) and _tadutpatti_ (succession in a relation of cause and effect). Tâdâtmya is a relation of genus and species and not of causation; thus we know that all pines are trees, and infer that this is a tree since it is a pine; tree and pine are related to each other as genus and species, and the co-inherence of the generic qualities of a tree with the specific characters of a pine tree may be viewed as a relation of essential identity (_tâdâtmya_). The relation of tadutpatti is that of uniformity of succession of cause and effect, e.g. of smoke to fire.

Nyâya holds that inference is made because of the invariable association (_niyama_) of the li@nga or hetu (the concomitance of which with the sâdhya has been safeguarded by the five conditions noted above) with the sâdhya, and not because of such specific relations as tâdâtmya or tadutpatti. If it is held that the inference that it is a tree because it is a pine is due to the essential identity of tree and pine, then the opposite argument that it is a pine because it is a tree ought to be valid as well; for if it were a case of identity it ought to be the same both ways. If in answer to this it is said that the characteristics of a pine are associated with those of a tree and not those of a tree with those of a pine, then certainly the argument is not due to essential identity, but to the invariable association of the li@nga (mark) with the li@ngin (the possessor of li@nga), otherwise called niyama. The argument from tadutpatti (association as cause and effect) is also really due to invariable association, for it explains the case of the inference of the type of cause and effect as well as of other types of inference, where the association as cause and effect is not available (e.g. from sunset the rise of stars is inferred). Thus it is that the invariable concomitance of the li@nga with the li@ngin, as safeguarded by the conditions noted above, is what leads us to make a valid inference [Footnote ref l].

We perceived in many cases that a li@nga (e.g. smoke) was associated with a li@ngin (fire), and had thence formed the notion

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Nyâyamañjari_ on anumâna.]

346

that wherever there was smoke there was fire. Now when we perceived that there was smoke in yonder hill, we remembered the concomitance (_vyâpti_) of smoke and fire which we had observed before, and then since there was smoke in the hill, which was known to us to be inseparably connected with fire, we concluded that there was fire in the hill. The discovery of the li@nga (smoke) in the hill as associated with the memory of its concomitance with fire (_t@rtîya-li@nga-parâmars'a) is thus the cause (_anumitikara@na_ or _anumâna_) of the inference (_anumiti_). The concomitance of smoke with fire is technically called _vyâpti._ When this refers to the concomitance of cases containing smoke with those having fire, it is called _bahirvyâpti_; and when it refers to the conviction of the concomitance of smoke with fire, without any relation to the circumstances under which the concomitance was observed, it is called _antarvyâpti._ The Buddhists since they did not admit the notions of generality, etc. preferred antarvyâpti view of concomitance to bahirvyâpti as a means of inference [Footnote ref 1].

Now the question arises that since the validity of an inference will depend mainly on the validity of the concomitance of sign (_hetu_) with the signate (_sâdhya_), how are we to assure ourselves in each case that the process of ascertaining the concomitance (_vyâptigraha_) had been correct, and the observation of concomitance had been valid. The Mîmâ@msâ school held, as we shall see in the next chapter, that if we had no knowledge of any such case in which there was smoke but no fire, and if in all the cases I knew I had perceived that wherever there was smoke there was fire, I could enunciate the concomitance of smoke with fire. But Nyâya holds that it is not enough that in all cases where there is smoke there should be fire, but it is necessary that in all those cases where there is no fire there should not be any smoke, i.e. not only every case of the existence of smoke should be a case of the existence of fire, but every case of absence of fire should be a case of absence of smoke. The former is technically called _anvayavyâpti_ and the latter _vyatirekavyâpti._ But even this is not enough. Thus there may have been an ass sitting, in a hundred cases where I had seen smoke, and there might have been a hundred cases where there was neither ass nor smoke, but it cannot be asserted from it that there is any relation of concomitance,

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Antarvyâptisamarthana,_ by Ratnâkaras'ânti in the _Six Buddhist Nyâya Tracts, Bibliotheca Indica_, 1910.]

347

or of cause and effect between the ass and the smoke. It may be that one might never have observed smoke without an antecedent ass, or an ass without the smoke following it, but even that is not enough. If it were such that we had so experienced in a very large number of cases that the introduction of the ass produced the smoke, and that even when all the antecedents remained the same, the disappearance of the ass was immediately followed by the disappearance of smoke (_yasmin sati bhavanam yato vinâ na bhavanam iti bhuyodars'ana@m, Nyâyamañjarî,_ p. 122), then only could we say that there was any relation of concomitance (_vyâpti_} between the ass and the smoke [Footnote ref 1]. But of course it might be that what we concluded to be the hetu by the above observations of anvaya-vyatireka might not be a real hetu, and there might be some other condition (_upâdhi_) associated with the hetu which was the real hetu. Thus we know that fire in green wood (_ârdrendhana_) produced smoke, but one might doubt that it was not the fire in the green wood that produced smoke, but there was some hidden demon who did it. But there would be no end of such doubts, and if we indulged in them, all our work endeavour and practical activities would have to be dispensed with (_vyâghâta_). Thus such doubts as lead us to the suspension of all work should not disturb or unsettle the notion of vyâpti or concomitance at which we had arrived by careful observation and consideration [Footnote ref 2]. The Buddhists and the naiyâyikas generally agreed as to the method of forming the notion of concomitance or vyâpti (_vyâptigraha_), but the former tried to assert that the validity of such a concomitance always depended on a relation of cause and effect or of identity of essence, whereas Nyâya held that neither the relations of cause and effect, nor that of essential identity of genus and species, exhausted the field of inference, and there was quite a number of other types of inference which could not be brought under either of them (e.g. the rise of the moon and the tide of the ocean). A natural fixed order that certain things happening other things would happen could certainly exist, even without the supposition of an identity of essence.

But sometimes it happens that different kinds of causes often have the same kind of effect, and in such cases it is difficult to

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Tâtparya@tîkâ_ on anumâna and vyâptigraha.]

[Footnote 2: _Tâtparya@tîkâ_ on vyâptigraha, and _Tattvacintâma@ni_ of Ga@nges'a on vyâptigraha.]

348

infer the particular cause from the effect. Nyâya holds however that though different causes are often found to produce the same effect, yet there must be some difference between one effect and another. If each effect is taken by itself with its other attendant circumstances and peculiarities, it will be found that it may then be possible to distinguish it from similar other effects. Thus a flood in the street may be due either to a heavy downpour of rain immediately before, or to the rise in the water of the river close by, but if observed carefully the flooding of the street due to rain will be found to have such special traits that it could be distinguished from a similar flooding due to the rise of water in the river. Thus from the flooding of the street of a special type, as demonstrated by its other attendant circumstances, the special manner in which the water flows by small rivulets or in sheets, will enable us to infer that the flood was due to rains and not to the rise of water in the river. Thus we see that Nyâya relied on empirical induction based on uniform and uninterrupted agreement in nature, whereas the Buddhists assumed _a priori_ principles of causality or identity of essence. It may not be out of place here to mention that in later Nyâya works great emphasis is laid on the necessity of getting ourselves assured that there was no such upâdhi (condition) associated with the hetu on account of which the concomitance happened, but that the hetu was unconditionally associated with the sâdhya in a relation of inseparable concomitance. Thus all fire does not produce smoke; fire must be associated with green wood in order to produce smoke. Green wood is thus the necessary condition (_upâdhi_) without which, no smoke could be produced. It is on account of this condition that fire is associated with smoke; and so we cannot say that there is smoke because there is fire. But in the concomitance of smoke with fire there is no condition, and so in every case of smoke there is fire. In order to be assured of the validity of vyâpti, it is necessary that we must be assured that there should be nothing associated with the hetu which conditioned the concomitance, and this must be settled by wide experience (_bhûyodars'ana_).

Pras'astapâda in defining inference as the "knowledge of that (e.g. fire) associated with the reason (e.g. smoke) by the sight of the reason" described a valid reason (_li@nga_) as that which is connected with the object of inference (_anumeya_) and which exists wherever the object of inference exists and is absent in all cases