Reading section 44

378

with the sense organs, and (4) of the manas with the soul. The objects of perception are of three kinds,(1) substances, (2) qualities, (3) jâti or class. The material substances are tangible objects of earth, fire, water, air in large dimensions (for in their fine atomic states they cannot be perceived). The qualities are colour, taste, smell, touch, number, dimension, separateness, conjunction, disjunction, priority, posteriority, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, and effort [Footnote ref l].

It may not be out of place here to mention in conclusion that Kumârila Bha@t@ta was rather undecided as to the nature of the senses or of their contact with the objects. Thus he says that the senses may be conceived either as certain functions or activities, or as entities having the capacity of revealing things without coming into actual contact with them, or that they might be entities which actually come in contact with their objects [Footnote ref 2], and he prefers this last view as being more satisfactory.

Indeterminate and determinate perception.

There are two kinds of perception in two stages, the first stage is called _nirvikalpa_ (indeterminate) and the second _savikalpa_ (determinate). The nirvikalpa perception of a thing is its perception at the first moment of the association of the senses and their objects. Thus Kumârila says that the cognition that appears first is a mere _âlocana_ or simple perception, called non-determinate pertaining to the object itself pure and simple, and resembling the cognitions that the new-born infant has of things around himself. In this cognition neither the genus nor the differentia is presented to consciousness; all that is present there is the individual wherein these two subsist. This view of indeterminate perception may seem in some sense to resemble the Buddhist view which defines it as being merely the specific individuality (_svalak@sa@na_} and regards it as being the only valid element in perception, whereas all the rest are conceived as being imaginary

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Prakara@napañcikâ_, pp. 53 etc., and Dr Ga@ngânâtha Jhâ's _Prabhâkaramimâ@msâ_, pp. 35 etc.]

[Footnote 2: _S'lokavârttika_, see _Pratyak@sasûtra_, 40 etc., and _Nyâyaratnâkara_ on it. It may be noted in this connection that Sâ@mkhya-Yoga did not think like Nyâya that the senses actually went out to meet the objects (_prâpyakâritva_) but held that there was a special kind of functioning (_v@rtti_) by virtue of which the senses could grasp even such distant objects as the sun and the stars. It is the functioning of the sense that reached the objects. The nature of the v@rtti is not further clearly explained and Pârthasârathi objects to it as being almost a different category (_tattvântara_).]

379

impositions. But both Kumârila and Prabhâkara think that both the genus and the differentia are perceived in the indeterminate stage, but these do not manifest themselves to us only because we do not remember the other things in relation to which, or in contrast to which, the percept has to show its character as genus or differentia; a thing can be cognized as an "individual" only in comparison with other things from which it differs in certain well-defined characters; and it can be apprehended as belonging to a class only when it is found to possess certain characteristic features in common with some other things; so we see that as other things are not presented to consciousness through memory, the percept at the indeterminate stage cannot be fully apprehended as an individual belonging to a class, though the data constituting the characteristic of the thing as a genus and its differentia are perceived at the indeterminate stage [Footnote ref 1]. So long as other things are not remembered these data cannot manifest themselves properly, and hence the perception of the thing remains indeterminate at the first stage of perception. At the second stage the self by its past impressions brings the present perception in relation to past ones and realizes its character as involving universal and particular. It is thus apparent that the difference between the indeterminate and the determinate perception is this, that in the latter case memory of other things creeps in, but this association of memory in the determinate perception refers to those other objects of memory and not to the percept. It is also held that though the determinate perception is based upon the indeterminate one, yet since the former also apprehends certain such factors as did not enter into the indeterminate perception, it is to be regarded as a valid cognition. Kumârila also agrees with Prabhâkara in holding both the indeterminate and the determinate perception valid [Footnote ref 2].

Some Ontological Problems connected with the Doctrine of Perception.

The perception of the class (_jâti_) of a percept in relation to other things may thus be regarded in the main as a difference between determinate and indeterminate perceptions. The problems of jâti and avayavâvayavî (part and whole notion) were

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Compare this with the Vais'e@sika view as interpreted by S'rîdhara.]

[Footnote 2: See _Prakara@napañcikâ_ and _S'âstradîpikâ_.]

380

the subjects of hot dispute in Indian philosophy. Before entering into discussion about jâti, Prabhâkara first introduced the problem of _avayava_ (part) and _avayavî_ (whole). He argues as an exponent of svata@h-prâmâ@nyavâda that the proof of the true existence of anything must ultimately rest on our own consciousness, and what is distinctly recognized in consciousness must be admitted to have its existence established. Following this canon Prabhâkara says that gross objects as a whole exist, since they are so perceived. The subtle atoms are the material cause and their connection (_sa@myoga_) is the immaterial cause (_asamavâyikâra@na_), and it is the latter which renders the whole altogether different from the parts of which it is composed; and it is not necessary that all the parts should be perceived before the whole is perceived. Kumârila holds that it is due to the point of view from which we look at a thing that we call it a separate whole or only a conglomeration of parts. In reality they are identical, but when we lay stress on the notion of parts, the thing appears to be a conglomeration of them, and when we look at it from the point of view of the unity appearing as a whole, the thing appears to be a whole of which there are parts (see _S'lokavârttika, Vanavâda_) [Footnote ref 1].

Jâti, though incorporating the idea of having many units within one, is different from the conception of whole in this, that it resides in its entirety in each individual constituting that jâti (_vyâs'ajyav@rtti_),

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: According to Sâ@mkhya-Yoga a thing is regarded as the unity of the universal and the particular (_sâmânyavis'esasamudâyo dravyam, Vyâsabhâsya_, III. 44), for there is no other separate entity which is different from them both in which they would inhere as Nyaya holds. Conglomerations can be of two kinds, namely those in which the parts exist at a distance from one another (e.g. a forest), and those in which they exist close together (_mrantarâ hi tadavayavâh_), and it is this latter combination (_ayutasiddhâvayava_) which is called a dravya, but here also there is no separate whole distinct from the parts; it is the parts connected in a particular way and having no perceptible space between them that is called a thing or a whole. The Buddhists as Panditâs'oka has shown did not believe in any whole (_avayavi_), it is the atoms which in connection with one another appeared as a whole occupying space (_paramânava eva hi pararûpades'aparihârenotpannâh parasparasahitâ avabhâsamânâ desavitânavanto bhavanti_). The whole is thus a mere appearance and not a reality (see _Avayavinirâkarana, Six Buddhist Nyâya Tracts_). Nyaya however held that the atoms were partless _(niravayava}_ and hence it would be wrong to say that when we see an object we see the atoms. The existence of a whole as different from the parts which belong to it is directly experienced and there is no valid reason against it:

"_adustakaranodbhûtamanâvirbhûtabâdhakam asandigdañca vijñânam katham mithyeti kathyate._"

_Nyâyamañjarî_, pp. 550 ff.]

381

but the establishment of the existence of wholes refutes the argument that jâti should be denied, because it involves the conception of a whole (class) consisting of many parts (individuals). The class character or jâti exists because it is distinctly perceived by us in the individuals included in any particular class. It is eternal in the sense that it continues to exist in other individuals, even when one of the individuals ceases to exist. When a new individual of that class (e g. cow class) comes into being, a new relation of inherence is generated by which the individual is brought into relation with the class-character existing in other individuals, for inherence (_samavâya_) according to Prabhâkara is not an eternal entity but an entity which is both produced and not produced according as the thing in which it exists is non-eternal or eternal, and it is not regarded as one as Nyâya holds, but as many, according as there is the infinite number of things in which it exists. When any individual is destroyed, the class-character does not go elsewhere, nor subsist in that individual, nor is itself destroyed, but it is only the inherence of class-character with that individual that ceases to exist. With the destruction of an individual or its production it is a new relation of inherence that is destroyed or produced. But the class-character or jâti has no separate existence apart from the individuals as Nyâya supposes. Apprehension of jâti is essentially the apprehension of the class-character of a thing in relation to other similar things of that class by the perception of the common characteristics. But Prabhâkara would not admit the existence of a highest genus sattâ (being) as acknowledged by Nyâya. He argues that the existence of class-character is apprehended because we find that the individuals of a class possess some common characteristic possessed by all the heterogeneous and disparate things of the world as can give rise to the conception of a separate jâti as sattâ, as demanded by the naiyâyikas. That all things are said to be _sat_ (existing) is more or less a word or a name without the corresponding apprehension of a common quality. Our experience always gives us concrete existing individuals, but we can never experience such a highest genus as pure existence or being, as it has no concrete form which may be perceived. When we speak of a thing as _sat_, we do not mean that it is possessed of any such class-characters as sattâ (being); what we mean is simply that the individual has its specific existence or svarûpasattâ.

382

Thus the Nyâya view of perception as taking only the thing in its pure being apart from qualities, etc, (_sanmâtra-vi@sayam pratyak@sa@m_) is made untenable by Prabhâkara, as according to him the thing is perceived direct with all its qualities. According to Kumârila however jâti is not something different from the individuals comprehended by it and it is directly perceived. Kumârila's view of jâti is thus similar to that held by Sâ@mkhya, namely that when we look at an individual from one point of view (jâti as identical with the individual), it is the individual that lays its stress upon our consciousness and the notion of jâti becomes latent, but when we look at it from another point of view (the individual as identical with jâti) it is the jâti which presents itself to consciousness, and the aspect as individual becomes latent. The apprehension as jâti or as individual is thus only a matter of different points of view or angles of vision from which we look at a thing. Quite in harmony with the conception of jâti, Kumârila holds that the relation of inherence is not anything which is distinct from the things themselves in which it is supposed to exist, but only a particular aspect or phase of the things themselves (_S'lokavârttika, Pratyak@sasûtra_, 149, 150, _abhedât samavâyo'stu svarûpam dharmadharmi@no@h_), Kumârila agrees with Prabhâkara that jâti is perceived by the senses (_tatraikabuddhinirgrâhyâ jâtirindriyagocarâ_).

It is not out of place to mention that on the evidence of Prabhâkara we find that the category of vis'e@sa admitted by the Ka@nâda school is not accepted as a separate category by the Mîmâ@msâ on the ground that the differentiation of eternal things from one another, for which the category of vis'e@sa is admitted, may very well be effected on the basis of the ordinary qualities of these things. The quality of p@rthaktva or specific differences in atoms, as inferred by the difference of things they constitute, can very well serve the purposes of vis'e@sa.

The nature of knowledge.

All knowledge involves the knower, the known object, and the knowledge at the same identical moment. All knowledge whether perceptual, inferential or of any other kind must necessarily reveal the self or the knower directly. Thus as in all knowledge the self is directly and immediately perceived, all knowledge may be regarded as perception from the point of view of self. The division

383

of the pramâ@nas as pratyak@sa (perception), anumâna (inference), etc. is from the point of view of the objects of knowledge with reference to the varying modes in which they are brought within the purview of knowledge. The self itself however has no illumining or revealing powers, for then even in deep sleep we could have knowledge, for the self is present even then, as is proved by the remembrance of dreams. It is knowledge (_sa@mvid_) that reveals by its very appearance both the self, the knower, and the objects. It is generally argued against the self-illuminative character of knowledge that all cognitions are of the forms of the objects they are said to reveal; and if they have the same form we may rather say that they have the same identical reality too. The Mîmâ@msâ answer to these objections is this, that if the cognition and the cognized were not different from one another, they could not have been felt as such, and we could not have felt that it is by cognition that we apprehend the cognized objects. The cognition (_sa@mvedana_) of a person simply means that such a special kind of quality (_dharma_) has been manifested in the self by virtue of which his active operation with reference to a certain object is favoured or determined, and the object of cognition is that with reference to which the active operation of the self has been induced. Cognitions are not indeed absolutely formless, for they have the cognitional character by which things are illumined and manifested. Cognition has no other character than this, that it illumines and reveals objects. The things only are believed to have forms and only such forms as knowledge reveal to us about them. Even the dream cognition is with reference to objects that were perceived previously, and of which the impressions were left in the mind and were aroused by the unseen agency (_ad@r@s@ta_). Dream cognition is thus only a kind of remembrance of that which was previously experienced. Only such of the impressions of cognized objects are roused in dreams as can beget just that amount of pleasurable or painful experience, in accordance with the operation of ad@r@s@ta, as the person deserves to have in accordance with his previous merit or demerit.

The Prabhâkara Mîmâ@msâ, in refuting the arguments of those who hold that our cognitions of objects are themselves cognized by some other cognition, says that this is not possible, since we do not experience any such double cognition and also because it would lead us to a _regressus ad infinitum,_ for if a second cognition

384

is necessary to interpret the first, then that would require a third and so on. If a cognition could be the object of another cognition, then it could not be self-valid. The cognition is not of course unknown to us, but that is of course because it is self-cognized, and reveals itself to us the moment it reveals its objects. From the illumination of objects also we can infer the presence of this self-cognizing knowledge. But it is only its presence that is inferred and not the cognition itself, for inference can only indicate the presence of an object and not in the form in which it can be apprehended by perception (_pratyak@sa_). Prabhâkara draws a subtle distinction between perceptuality (_sa@mvedyatva_) and being object of knowledge (_prameyatva_). A thing can only be apprehended (_sa@mvedyate_) by perception, whereas inference can only indicate the presence of an object without apprehending the object itself. Our cognition cannot be apprehended by any other cognition. Inference can only indicate the presence or existence of knowledge but cannot apprehend the cognition itself [Footnote ref 1].

Kumârila also agrees with Prabhâkara in holding that perception is never the object of another perception and that it ends in the direct apprehensibility of the object of perception. But he says that every perception involves a relationship between the perceiver and the perceived, wherein the perceiver behaves as the agent whose activity in grasping the object is known as cognition. This is indeed different from the Prabhâkara view, that in one manifestation of knowledge the knower, the known, and the knowledge, are simultaneously illuminated (the doctrine of _tripu@tîpratyak@sa_) [Footnote ref 2].

The Psychology of Illusion.

The question however arises that if all apprehensions are valid, how are we to account for illusory perceptions which cannot be regarded as valid? The problem of illusory perception and its psychology is a very favourite topic of discussion in Indian philosophy. Omitting the theory of illusion of the Jains called _satkhyâti_ which we have described before, and of the Vedântists, which we shall describe in the next chapter, there are three different theories of illusion, viz. (1) _âtmakhyâti_, (2) _viparîtakhyâtî_ or _anyathâkhyâti_, and (3) _akhyâti_ of the Mîmâ@msâ school. The

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Prabhâkaramîmâ@msâ,_ by Dr Ga@nganâtha Jhâ.]

[Footnote 2: _loc. cit._ pp. 26-28.]

385

viparîtâkhyâti or anyathâkhyâti theory of illusion is accepted by the Nyâya, Vais'e@sika and the Yoga, the âkhyâti theory by Mîmâ@msâ and Sâ@mkhya and the âtmakhyâti by the Buddhists.

The commonest example of illusion in Indian philosophy is the illusory appearance of a piece of broken conch-shell as a piece of silver. That such an illusion occurs is a fact which is experienced by all and agreed to by all. The differences of view are with regard to its cause or its psychology. The idealistic Buddhists who deny the existence of the external world and think that there are only the forms of knowledge, generated by the accumulated karma of past lives, hold that just as in the case of a correct perception, so also in the case of illusory perception it is the flow of knowledge which must be held responsible. The flow of knowledge on account of the peculiarities of its own collocating conditions generates sometimes what we call right perception and sometimes wrong perception or illusion. On this view nothing depends upon the so-called external data. For they do not exist, and even if they did exist, why should the same data sometimes bring about the right perception and sometimes the illusion? The flow of knowledge creates both the percept and the perceiver and unites them. This is true both in the case of correct perception and illusory perception. Nyâya objects to the above view, and says that, if knowledge irrespective of any external condition imposes upon itself the knower and the illusory percept, then the perception ought to be of the form "I am silver" and not "this is silver." Moreover this theory stands refuted, as it is based upon a false hypothesis that it is the inner knowledge which appears as coming from outside and that the external as such does not exist.

The viparîtakhyâti or the anyathâkhyâti theory supposes that the illusion takes place because on account of malobservation we do not note the peculiar traits of the conch-shell as distinguished from the silver, and at the same time by the glow etc. of the conch-shell unconsciously the silver which I had seen elsewhere is remembered and the object before me is taken as silver. In illusion the object before us with which our eye is associated is not conch-shell, for the traits peculiar to it not being grasped, it is merely an object. The silver is not utterly non-existent, for it exists elsewhere and it is the memory of it as experienced before that creates confusion and leads us to think of the conch-shell as silver. This school agrees with the akhyâti school that the fact

386

that I remember silver is not taken note of at the time of illusion. But it holds that the mere non-distinction is not enough to account for the phenomenon of illusion, for there is a definite positive aspect associated with it, viz. the false identification of silver (seen elsewhere) with the conch-shell before us.

The âkhyâti theory of Mîmâ@msâ holds that since the special peculiarities of the conch-shell are not noticed, it is erroneous to say that we identify or cognize positively the conch-shell as the silver (perceived elsewhere), for the conch-shell is not cognized at all. What happens here is simply this, that only the features common to conch-shell and silver being noticed, the perceiver fails to apprehend the difference between these two things, and this gives rise to the cognition of silver. Owing to a certain weakness of the mind the remembrance of silver roused by the common features of the conch-shell and silver is not apprehended, and the fact that it is only a memory of silver seen in some past time that has appeared before him is not perceived; and it is as a result of this non-apprehension of the difference between the silver remembered and the present conch-shell that the illusion takes place. Thus, though the illusory perception partakes of a dual character of remembrance and apprehension, and as such is different from the ordinary valid perception (which is wholly a matter of direct apprehension) of real silver before us, yet as the difference between the remembrance of silver and the sight of the present object is not apprehended, the illusory perception appears at the moment of its production to be as valid as a real valid perception. Both give rise to the same kind of activity on the part of the agent, for in illusory perception the perceiver would be as eager to stoop and pick up the thing as in the case of a real perception. Kumârila agrees with this view as expounded by Prabhâkara, and further says that the illusory judgment is as valid to the cognizor at the time that he has the cognition as any real judgment could be. If subsequent experience rejects it, that does not matter, for it is admitted in Mîmâ@msâ that when later experience finds out the defects of any perception it can invalidate the original perception which was self-valid at the time of its production [Footnote Ref. 1]. It is easy to see that the Mîmâ@msâ had to adopt this view of illusion to maintain the doctrine that all cognition at the moment of its production is valid. The âkhyâti theory

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Prakara@napañcikâ, S'âstradîpikâ_, and _S'lokavârttika_, sûtra 2.]

387

tries to establish the view that the illusion is not due to any positive wrong knowledge, but to a mere negative factor of non-apprehension due to certain weakness of mind. So it is that though illusion is the result, yet the cognition so far as it is cognition, is made up of two elements, the present perception and memory, both of which are true so far as they are individually present to us, and the cognition itself has all the characteristics of any other valid knowledge, for the mark of the validity of a cognition is its power to prompt us to action. In doubtful cognitions also, as in the case "Is this a post or a man?" what is actually perceived is some tall object and thus far it is valid too. But when this perception gives rise to two different kinds of remembrance (of the pillar and the man), doubt comes in. So the element of apprehension involved in doubtful cognitions should be regarded as self-valid as any other cognition.