Reading section 41

349

where it does not exist. This is indeed the same as the Nyâya qualifications of _pak@sasattva, sapak@sasattva and _vipak@sâsattva_ of a valid reason (hetu). Pras'astapâda further quotes a verse to say that this is the same as what Kâs'yapa (believed to be the family name of Ka@nâda) said. Ka@nâda says that we can infer a cause from the effect, the effect from the cause, or we can infer one thing by another when they are mutually connected, or in opposition or in a relation of inherence (IX. ii. 1 and III. i. 9). We can infer by a reason because it is duly associated (_prasiddhipûrvakatva_) with the object of inference. What this association was according to Ka@nâda can also be understood for he tells us (III. i. 15) that where there is no proper association, the reason (hetu) is either non-existent in the object to be inferred or it has no concomitance with it (_aprasiddha_) or it has a doubtful existence _sandigdha_). Thus if I say this ass is a horse because it has horns it is fallacious, for neither the horse nor the ass has horns. Again if I say it is a cow because it has horns, it is fallacious, for there is no concomitance between horns and a cow, and though a cow may have a horn, all that have horns are not cows. The first fallacy is a combination of pak@sâsattva and sapak@sâsattva, for not only the present pak@sa (the ass) had no horns, but no horses had any horns, and the second is a case of vipak@sasattva, for those which are not cows (e.g. buffaloes) have also horns. Thus, it seems that when Pras'astapâda says that he is giving us the view of Ka@nâda he is faithful to it. Pras'astapâda says that wherever there is smoke there is fire, if there is no fire there is no smoke. When one knows this concomitance and unerringly perceives the smoke, he remembers the concomitance and feels certain that there is fire. But with regard to Ka@nâda's enumeration of types of inference such as "a cause is inferred from its effect, or an effect from the cause," etc., Pras'astapâda holds that these are not the only types of inference, but are only some examples for showing the general nature of inference. Inference merely shows a connection such that from this that can be inferred. He then divides inference into two classes, d@r@s@ta (from the experienced characteristics of one member of a class to another member of the same class), and sâmânyato d@r@s@ta. D@r@s@ta (perceived resemblance) is that where the previously known case and the inferred case is exactly of the same class. Thus as an example of it we can point out that by perceiving that only a cow has a hanging mass of flesh on its neck (_sâsnâ_), I can whenever I see the same hanging

350

mass of flesh at the neck of an animal infer that it is a cow. But when on the strength of a common quality the inference is extended to a different class of objects, it is called sâmânyato d@r@s@ta. Thus on perceiving that the work of the peasants is rewarded with a good harvest I may infer that the work of the priests, namely the performance of sacrifices, will also be rewarded with the objects for which they are performed (i.e. the attainment of heaven). When the conclusion, to which one has arrived (_svanis'citârtha_) is expressed in five premisses for convincing others who are either in doubt, or in error or are simply ignorant, then the inference is called parârthânumâna. We know that the distinction of svârthânumâna (inference for oneself) and parârthânumâna (inference for others) was made by the Jains and Buddhists. Pras'astapâda does not make a sharp distinction of two classes of inference, but he seems to mean that what one infers, it can be conveyed to others by means of five premisses in which case it is called parârthânumâna. But this need not be considered as an entirely new innovation of Pras'astapâda, for in IX. 2, Ka@nâda himself definitely alludes to this distinction (_asyeda@m kâryyakâra@nasambandhas'câvayavâdbhavati_). The five premisses which are called in Nyâya _pratijñâ, hetu d@r@s@tânta, upanaya,_ and _nigamana_ are called in Vais'e@sika _pratijñâ, apades'a, nidars'ana, anusandhâna_, and _pratyâmnâya_. Ka@nâda however does not mention the name of any of these premisses excepting the second "apades'a." Pratijñâ is of course the same as we have in Nyâya, and the term nidars'ana is very similar to Nyâya d@r@s@tânta, but the last two are entirely different. Nidars'ana may be of two kinds, (1) agreement in presence (e.g. that which has motion is a substance as is seen in the case of an arrow), (2) agreement in absence (e.g. what is not a substance has no motion as is seen in the case of the universal being [Footnote ref l]). He also points out cases of the fallacy of the example

___________________________________________________________________

{Footnote 1: Dr Vidyâbhû@sa@na says that "An example before the time of Dignâga served as a mere familiar case which was cited to help the understanding of the listener, e.g. The hill is fiery; because it has smoke; like a kitchen (example). Asa@nga made the example more serviceable to reasoning, but Dignâga converted it into a universal proposition, that is a proposition expressive of the universal or inseparable connection between the middle term and the major term, e.g. The hill is fiery; because it has smoke; all that has smoke is fiery as a kitchen" (_Indian Logic_, pp. 95, 96). It is of course true that Vâtsyâyana had an imperfect example as "like a kitchen" (_s'abda@h utpatvidharmakatvâdanuya@h sthâlyâdivat_, I.i. 36), but Pras'astapâda has it in the proper form. Whether Pras'astapâda borrowed it from Dig@nnâga or Dig@nnâga from Pras'astapâda cannot be easily settled.]

351

(_nidars'anâbhâsa_). Pras'astapâda's contribution thus seems to consist of the enumeration of the five premisses and the fallacy of the nidars'ana, but the names of the last two premisses are so different from what are current in other systems that it is reasonable to suppose that he collected them from some other traditional Vais'e@sika work which is now lost to us. It however definitely indicates that the study of the problem of inference was being pursued in Vais'e@sika circles independently of Nyâya. There is no reason however to suppose that Pras'astapâda borrowed anything from Di@nnâga as Professor Stcherbatsky or Keith supposes, for, as I have shown above, most of Pras'astapâda's apparent innovations are all definitely alluded to by Ka@nâda himself, and Professor Keith has not discussed this alternative. On the question of the fallacies of nidars'ana, unless it is definitely proved that Di@nnâga preceded Pras'astapâda, there is no reason whatever to suppose that the latter borrowed it from the former [Footnote ref 1].

The nature and ascertainment of concomitance is the most important part of inference. Vâtsyâyana says that an inference can be made by the sight of the li@nga (reason or middle) through the memory of the connection between the middle and the major previously perceived. Udyotakara raises the question whether it is the present perception of the middle or the memory of the connection of the middle with the major that should be regarded as leading to inference. His answer is that both these lead to inference, but that which immediately leads to inference is _li@ngaparâmars'a_, i.e. the present perception of the middle in the minor associated with the memory of its connection with the major, for inference does not immediately follow the memory of the connection, but the present perception of the middle associated with the memory of the connection (_sm@rtyanug@rhîto li@ngaparâmars'o_). But he is silent with regard to the nature of concomitance. Udyotakara's criticisms of Di@nnâga as shown by Vâcaspati have no reference to this point The doctrine of _tâdâtmya_ and _tadutpatti_ was therefore in all probability a new contribution to Buddhist logic by Dharmakîrtti. Dharmakîrtti's contention was that the root principle of the connection between the middle and the major was that the former was either identical in essence with the latter or its effect and that unless this was grasped a mere collection of positive or negative instances will not give us

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Pras'astapâda's bhâ@sya with _Nyâyakandalî_, pp. 200-255.]

352

the desired connection [Footnote ref 1]. Vâcaspati in his refutation of this view says that the cause-effect relation cannot be determined as a separate relation. If causality means invariable immediate antecedence such that there being fire there is smoke and there being no fire there is no smoke, then it cannot be ascertained with perfect satisfaction, for there is no proof that in each case the smoke was caused by fire and not by an invisible demon. Unless it can be ascertained that there was no invisible element associated, it cannot be said that the smoke was immediately preceded by fire and fire alone. Again accepting for the sake of argument that causality can be determined, then also cause is known to precede the effect and therefore the perception of smoke can only lead us to infer the presence of fire at a preceding time and not contemporaneously with it. Moreover there are many cases where inference is possible, but there is no relation of cause and effect or of identity of essence (e.g. the sunrise of this morning by the sunrise of yesterday morning). In the case of identity of essence (_tâdâtmya_ as in the case of the pine and the tree) also there cannot be any inference, for one thing has to be inferred by another, but if they are identical there cannot be any inference. The nature of concomitance therefore cannot be described in either of these ways. Some things (e.g. smoke) are naturally connected with some other things (e.g. fire) and when such is the case, though we may not know any further about the nature of this connection, we may infer the latter from the former and not vice versa, for fire is connected with smoke only under certain conditions (e.g. green wood). It may be argued that there may always be certain unknown conditions which may vitiate the validity of inference. To this Vâcaspati's answer is that if even after observing a large number of cases and careful search such conditions (_upâdhi_) cannot be discovered, we have to take it for granted that they do not exist and that there is a natural connection between the middle and the major. The later Buddhists introduced the method of _Pañcakâra@nî_ in order to determine effectively the causal relation. These five conditions determining the causal relation are (1) neither the cause nor the effect is perceived, (2) the cause is perceived, (3) in immediate succession the effect is perceived, (4) the cause disappears, (5) in

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Kâryyakâra@nubhâvâdvâ svabhâvâdva niyâmakât avinâbhâvaniyamo' dars'anânna na dars'anât. Tâtparya@tîkâ_, p. 105.]

353

immediate succession the effect disappears. But this method cannot guarantee the infallibility of the determination of cause and effect relation; and if by the assumption of a cause-effect relation no higher degree of certainty is available, it is better to accept a natural relation without limiting it to a cause-effect relation [Footnote ref 1].

In early Nyâya books three kinds of inference are described, namely pûrvavat, s'e@savat, and sâmânyato-d@r@s@ta. Pûrvavat is the inference of effects from causes, e.g. that of impending rain from heavy dark clouds; s'e@savat is the inference of causes from effects, e.g. that of rain from the rise of water in the river; sâmânyato-d@r@s@ta refers to the inference in all cases other than those of cause and effect, e.g. the inference of the sour taste of the tamarind from its form and colour. _Nyâyamañjarî_ mentions another form of anumâna, namely paris'e@samâna (_reductio ad absurdum_), which consists in asserting anything (e.g. consciousness) of any other thing (e.g. âtman), because it was already definitely found out that consciousness was not produced in any other part of man. Since consciousness could not belong to anything else, it must belong to soul of necessity. In spite of these variant forms they are all however of one kind, namely that of the inference of the probandum (_sâdhya_) by virtue of the unconditional and invariable concomitance of the hetu, called the vyâpti-niyama. In the new school of Nyâya (Navya-Nyâya) a formal distinction of three kinds of inference occupies an important place, namely anvayavyatireki, kevalânvayi, and kevalavyatireki. Anvayavyatireki is that inference where the vyâpti has been observed by a combination of a large number of instances of agreement in presence and agreement in absence, as in the case of the concomitance of smoke and fire (wherever there is smoke there is fire (_anvaya_), and where there is no fire, there is no smoke (_vyatireka_)). An inference could be for one's own self (_svârthânumâna_) or for the sake of convincing others (_parârthânumâna_). In the latter case, when it was necessary that an inference should be put explicitly in an unambiguous manner, live propositions (_avayavas_) were regarded as necessary, namely pratijña (e.g. the hill is fiery), hetu (since it has smoke), udâhara@na (where there is smoke there is fire, as in the kitchen), upanaya (this hill has smoke), niga@mana (therefore it has got

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Vâtsyâya@na's bhâsya, Udyotakara's _Vârttika_ and _Tâtparyya@tîkâ,_ I.i. 5.]

354

fire). Kevalânvayi is that type of inference, the vyâpti of which could not be based on any negative instance, as in the case "this object has a name, since it is an object of knowledge (_ida@m, vâcyam prameyatvât_)." Now no such case is known which is not an object of knowledge; we cannot therefore know of any case where there was no object of knowledge (_prameyatva_) and no name (_vâcyatva_); the vyâpti here has therefore to be based necessarily on cases of agreement--wherever there is prameyatva or an object of knowledge, there is vâcyatva or name. The third form of kevalavyatireki is that where positive instances in agreement cannot be found, such as in the case of the inference that earth differs from other elements in possessing the specific quality of smell, since all that does not differ from other elements is not earth, such as water; here it is evident that there cannot be any positive instance of agreement and the concomitance has to be taken from negative instances. There is only one instance, which is exactly the proposition of our inference--earth differs from other elements, since it has the special qualities of earth. This inference could be of use only in those cases where we had to infer anything by reason of such special traits of it as was possessed by it and it alone.

Upamâna and S'abda.

The third pramâ@na, which is admitted by Nyâya and not by Vais'e@sika, is _upamâna_, and consists in associating a thing unknown before with its name by virtue of its similarity with some other known thing. Thus a man of the city who has never seen a wild ox (_gavaya_) goes to the forest, asks a forester--"what is gavaya?" and the forester replies--"oh, you do not know it, it is just like a cow"; after hearing this from the forester he travels on, and on seeing a gavaya and finding it to be similar to a cow he forms the opinion that this is a gavaya. This knowing an hitherto unknown thing by virtue of its similarity to a known thing is called _upamâna_. If some forester had pointed out a gavaya to a man of the city and had told him that it was called a gavaya, then also the man would have known the animal by the name gavaya, but then this would have been due to testimony (_s'abda-prama@na). The knowledge is said to be generated by the upamâna process when the association of the unknown animal with its name is made by the observer

355

on the strength of the experience of the similarity of the unknown animal to a known one. The naiyâyikas are thorough realists, and as such they do not regard the observation of similarity as being due to any subjective process of the mind. Similarity is indeed perceived by the visual sense but yet the association of the name in accordance with the perception of similarity and the instruction received is a separate act and is called _upamâna_ [Footnote ref 1].

S'abda-pramâ@na or testimony is the right knowledge which we derive from the utterances of infallible and absolutely truthful persons. All knowledge derived from the Vedas is valid, for the Vedas were uttered by Îs'vara himself. The Vedas give us right knowledge not of itself, but because they came out as the utterances of the infallible Îs'vara. The Vais'e@sikas did not admit s'abda as a separate pramâ@na, but they sought to establish the validity of testimony (_s'abda_) on the strength of inference (_anumiti_) on the ground of its being the utterance of an infallible person. But as I have said before, this explanation is hardly corroborated by the Vais'e@sika sûtras, which tacitly admit the validity of the scriptures on its own authority. But anyhow this was how Vais'e@sika was interpreted in later times.

Negation in Nyâya-Vais'e@sika.

The problem of negation or non-existence (_abhâva_) is of great interest in Indian philosophy. In this section we can describe its nature only from the point of view of perceptibility. Kumârila [Footnote ref 2]

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Nyâyamañjarî_ on upamâna. The oldest Nyâya view was that the instruction given by the forester by virtue of which the association of the name "wild ox" to the strange animal was possible was itself "upamâna." When Pras'astapâda held that upamâna should be treated as a case of testimony (_âptavacana_), he had probably this interpretation in view. But Udyotakara and Vâcaspati hold that it was not by the instruction alone of the forester that the association of the name "wild ox" was made, but there was the perception of similarity, and the memory of the instruction of the forester too. So it is the perception of similarity with the other two factors as accessories that lead us to this association called upamâna. What Vâtsyâya@na meant is not very clear, but Di@nnâga supposes that according to him the result of upamâna was the knowledge of similarity or the knowledge of a thing having similarity. Vâcaspati of course holds that he has correctly interpreted Vâtsyâya@na's intention. It is however definite that upamâna means the associating of a name to a new object (_samâkhyâsambandhapratipattirupamânârtha@h_, Vâtsyâya@na). Jayanta points out that it is the preception of similarity which directly leads to the association of the name and hence the instruction of the forester cannot be regarded as the direct cause and consequently it cannot be classed under testimony (_s'abda_). See Pras'astapâda and _Nyâyakandalî,_ pp. 220-22, Vâtsyâya@na, Udyotakara, Vâcaspati and Jayanta on _Upamâna_.]

[Footnote 2: See Kumârila's treatment of abhâva in the _S'lokavârttika_, pp. 473-492.]

356

and his followers, whose philosophy we shall deal with in the next chapter, hold that negation (_abhâva_) appears as an intuition (_mânam_) with reference to the object negated where there are no means of ordinary cognition (_pramâ@na_) leading to prove the existence (_satparicchedakam_) of that thing. They held that the notion "it is not existent" cannot be due to perception, for there is no contact here with sense and object. It is true indeed that when we turn our eyes (e.g. in the case of the perception of the non-existence of a jug) to the ground, we see both the ground and the non-existence of a jug, and when we shut them we can see neither the jug nor the ground, and therefore it could be urged that if we called the ground visually perceptible, we could say the same with regard to the non-existence of the jug. But even then since in the case of the perception of the jug there is sense-contact, which is absent in the other case, we could never say that both are grasped by perception. We see the ground and remember the jug (which is absent) and thus in the mind rises the notion of non-existence which has no reference at all to visual perception. A man may be sitting in a place where there were no tigers, but he might not then be aware of their non-existence at the time, since he did not think of them, but when later on he is asked in the evening if there were any tigers at the place where he was sitting in the morning, he then thinks and becomes aware of the non-existence of tigers there in the morning, even without perceiving the place and without any operation of the memory of the non-existence of tigers. There is no question of there being any inference in the rise of our notion of non-existence, for it is not preceded by any notion of concomitance of any kind, and neither the ground nor the non-perception of the jug could be regarded as a reason (_li@nga_), for the non-perception of the jug is related to the jug and not to the negation of the jug, and no concomitance is known between the non-perception of the jug and its non-existence, and when the question of the concomitance of non-perception with non-existence is brought in, the same difficulty about the notion of non-existence (_abhâva_) which was sought to be explained will recur again. Negation is therefore to be admitted as cognized by a separate and independent process of knowledge. Nyâya however says that the perception of non-existence (e.g. there is no jug here) is a unitary perception of one whole, just as any perception of positive existence (e.g.

357

there is a jug on the ground) is. Both the knowledge of the ground as well as the knowledge of the non-existence of the jug arise there by the same kind of action of the visual organ, and there is therefore no reason why the knowledge of the ground should be said to be due to perception, whereas the knowledge of the negation of the jug on the ground should be said to be due to a separate process of knowledge. The non-existence of the jug is taken in the same act as the ground is perceived. The principle that in order to perceive a thing one should have sense-contact with it, applies only to positive existents and not to negation or non-existence. Negation or non-existence can be cognized even without any sense-contact. Non-existence is not a positive substance, and hence there cannot be any question here of sense-contact. It may be urged that if no sense-contact is required in apprehending negation, one could as well apprehend negation or non-existence of other places which are far away from him. To this the reply is that to apprehend negation it is necessary that the place where it exists must be perceived. We know a thing and its quality to be different, and yet the quality can only be taken in association with the thing and it is so in this case as well. We can apprehend non-existence only through the apprehension of its locus. In the case when non-existence is said to be apprehended later on it is really no later apprehension of non-existence but a memory of non-existence (e.g. of jug) perceived before along with the perception of the locus of non-existence (e.g. ground). Negation or non-existence (_abhâva_) can thus, according to Nyâya, generate its cognition just as any positive existence can do. Negation is not mere negativity or mere vacuous absence, but is what generates the cognition "is not," as position (_bhâva_) is what generates the cognition "it is."

The Buddhists deny the existence of negation. They hold that when a negation is apprehended, it is apprehended with specific time and space conditions (e.g. this is not here now); but in spite of such an apprehension, we could never think that negation could thus be associated with them in any relation. There is also no relation between the negation and its _pratiyogi_ (thing negated--e.g. jug in the negation of jug), for when there is the pratiyogi there is no negation, and when there is the negation there is no pratiyogi. There is not even the relation of opposition (_virodha_), for we could have admitted it, if