Indian Logic Part 01

Author(s): Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Sanskrit Sanskriti Granthmala
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/006973/1

Page #1

A STUDY
ON
JAYANTA BHATTA'S NYAYAMAÑJARĪ
A MATURE SANSKRIT WORK
ON
INDIAN LOGIC
PART 1
By
NAGIN J. SHAH
SANSKRIT-SANSKRITI GRANTHAMALA 1
GENERAL EDITOR NAGIN J. SHAH

Page #2

A STUDY
OF JAYANTA BHATTA’S NYAYAMANJARĪ
A MATURE SANSKRIT WORK
ON
INDIAN LOGIC
PART I
Ву
NAGIN J. SHAH
SANSKRIT-SANSKRITI GRANTHAMĀLĀ 1
GENERAL EDITOR NAGIN J. SHAH

Page #3

Printed by : S. T. Shastri Narendra Printers. Kaloliawadi, Kankaria Road, Ahmedabad-380 022.
Published by Dr. Jagruti Dilip Sheth, Ph.D. 23, Valkeshvar Society, Bhudarpura, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380 015.
July, 1992
PRICE RUPEES : NINETY
This book can be orderd from : 1. Parshva Prakashan,
Nisha Pole, Relief Rd, Ahmedebad-380 001 (India); 2. Saraswati Pustak Bhandar,
Hathi Khana, Ratan Pole, Ahmedabad-380 001 (India)

Page #4

CONTENTS
7-8
1-16 17-108
17-43
Foreword PrefaceIntroduction CHAPTER I
Pramaņa Arthāpatti and Abhāva (1) On Defining Pramāņa (2). On the Buddhist Twofold
Classification of Pramāņa (3) On Arthāpatti
(4) On Abhāva References Appendix On the Problems of Knowledge in General
43-54 54-71 72-91 92-108 109-125

Page #5


Page #6

FOREWORD
It gives me great pleasure in offering to the scholars of Indian philosophy the present work entitled 'A study of Jayanta Bhatta's Nyayamañjari - A Mature Sanskrit Work on INDIAN LOGIC Part l' as the first book of Sanskrit-Sanskriti Granthamala.
Jayanta Bhatta, a Kashmiri pundit of ninth century A.D., was an astute logician and an able philosopher. His Nyāyamañjasi occupies a unique place among the Sanskrit works on Indian philosophy. It bears testimony to Jayanta's philosophical acumen and intellectual powers. . It forcefully establishes Nyāya theories after critically examining the rival ones, mainly the Buddhist and the Mimāmsaka. Therefore, it is a must' for any one interested in Indian philosophy. It is an introductory window to many fascinating intra-Indian philosophical controversies wbich obviously deserve attention..
. I hope this work, since it is a study of the first chapter of the Nyāyamañjari, will be of considerable use to the scholars of Indian philosophy in general and Indian logic in particular. I have no doubt that the scholarly world will receive it with delight.
Nagin J. Shah General Editor
Sanskrit-Sanskriti Granthamālā 23 Valkeshvar Society Bhudarpura, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380015 9th June 1992

Page #7


Page #8

PREFACE
When I was reading for my Doctorate in the years 1961-63, I bad an opportunity to consult the Nyāyamañjari and to study some portion of it. My guide was Dr. Pt. Sukhlalji. It was he who initiated me to the Nyāyamañjarī. Then in the year 1972 I
tunate enough to find the manuscript of the Nyāyamanjarigranthjbba nga of Cakıadhara (10th century A. D.), the only available commentary on the Nyāyamañjali. I critically edited it with elaborate foot-notes and introduction. This provided me an opportunity to study closely the entire Nyayamanjari. This opened before me the treasure of Indian philosophy. I made up my mind to translate the Nyāyamañjari into Gujarati, my mother tongue. This translation up to the vinth ābpika has already been published. At last, I thought it worthwbile to prepare a chapter-wise study, in English, of the Nyayamañjari. The present book is the result of ibis resolve. It contains the study of the first chapter of the Nyāyamañjari.
The author of the Nyāyama ñjari is Jayanta Bhatta, a Kashmiri pundit deeply learned in the traditional systems of Indian philosophy. He, flourished in the reign of King Sankarayarman (A. D. 885-902). His great-grand father was a minister of King Lalitāditya (A. D. 750). And Abhinanda, a son of Jayanta, is the author of Kādambarikarbāsāra.
Bhatta Jayanta's three works have so far been recovered and published. They are Nyāyak alika, Āgamadambara and Nyayamañjari. Nyayakalikā is a short commentary on the Nyāyasūtra. Agamadambara is a Sanskrit drama. And the Nyāyamañjari, though a commentary on the Nyāyasūtra, is of the pature of an independent Nyāya work.
Jayanta's Nyāyamañjari is one of the three invaluable jewels of Indian philosophy, the remaining two being Dharmakirti's Pramānavārtika and Kuparila's Slokavartika. If we acquaint ourselves with these three mature philosophical works written during the period between the 7th and 9th centuries A.D., the golden

Page #9

period of Indian Philosophy, we shall find that in that period the contest was triangular i. e. among the Buddhist, the Mimaṁsaka and the Naiyāyika. The main targets of Dharmakirti's attack are the Mimāmsakas and the Najyayikas. Similarly, Kumārila's attacks are mainly directed against the Buddhists and the Naiyayikas. And even Jayanta, a Naiyāyika, severely and mainly attacks the Buddhists and the Mimāṁsakas. These giants of Indian philo. sophy mostly ignore others. This triangular contest of the period has yielded very good results. It has made Indian philosophy deep, sharp and thought-provoking.
Jayanta wrote his Nyāyamañjari while in prison. He was imprisoned in a Khasa region in Kashmir at the instance of King Sankaravarman whom he served as a minister. Jayarita's Nyayamañjani is a unique Nyāya work. The maturity of discussion is evident at every stage. Its Sanskrit is sweet and lucid. It is written in prose and verse style. Though it is known as a commentary on the Nyāyasūtra, it is really an independent work on the Nyaya philosophy. As we have already stated, in this Nyāyamanjari one finds the triangular contest among the Naiyāyika, the Mîmāmsaka and the Buddhist Its study gives us a clear idea of the problems of Indian philosophy and their solution offered by the three main branches of Indian philosophy. . ,
: The only extant commentary on the Nyayamañjari is the Nyāyamañjarigranthibhanga by Cakradhara, a Kashmiri pundit of 10th century A. D. But the Nyāyamañjari had attracted the attention of many other scholars even prior to Cakradhara. Some of them had composed commentaries which are not extant now. Cakradhara had consulted them. So he in his commentary gives different interpretations, offered by other commentators, of the textual portions of the Nyāyamañjari and records different readings accepted by them.
At the end I express my wish in the words of Jayanta : परमार्थभावनाक्रमसमुन्मिषत्पुलकमाञ्छितकपोलम् । स्वकृतीः प्रकाशयन्तः पश्यन्ति सतां मुखं धन्याः ॥ .
Nagin J. Sbah

Page #10

INTRODUCTION
Nyāyamañjari of Jayanta is one of the maturest texts produced by the Nyaya school of Indian philosophy, a school whose role (together with that of its sisterschool Vaiseșika) in the development of philosophical speculation in ancient India has been truly catalytic. For all mature - that is, systematic, rational and advanced - philosophical speculation that took place in ancient India took place under an impetus somehow received from the Nyāya-Vaiseșika school (to call by one name the two sister - schools in question). The exact origins of this school - as of so much that is ancient Indian -- are shrouded in mystery but one thing seems to be certain, and it is this that the circles amidst which it made its appearance were considerably free from theological prepossessions. Thus the Nyāya authors were preoccupied plimarily with the problems of logic and secondarily with those of metaphysics, ethics and the like while the Vaiseşika authors were preoccupied primarily with the problems of metaphysics and secondarily with those of logic, ethics and the like, but both pursued their respective enquiries in a manner that was rational to a very large extent. Hence it was that when certain Buddhists prompted by the spirit of the Nyaya-Vaiseșika school themselves undertook rational enquiries in the field of logic and metaphysics they spoke a language thoroughly understandable to their NyāyaVaiseșika adversaries; the two camps thus formed got engaged in a battle of wits that continued for centuries and constitutes a most glorious chapter in the history of Indian philosophy. A similar interest in the problems of logic and metaphysic's was similarly generated in the Mimāmsakas who were originally and primarily priests obsessed with the problems of Vedic ritualism. True, even the Nyāya-Vaiseșika philosophers soon became-if they were not already from the beginning - a champion of one version of Vedic orthodoxy, a version different from that upheld by the

Page #11

INDIAN LOGIC
Mimāṁsakas; and all Buddhists wore a champion of Buddhist orthodoxy in one version or another. But the point to be noted is that these Nyaya - Vaiseşika, Mimamsā and Buddhist philosophers could manage to pursue rational erquires with the problems of logic and metaphysics in a manner considerably unhirdered by their respective theological affiliations. These were the three trends that dominated the scene in the period when the country witnessed a genuine bloom in philosophical activity, but three more deserve notice for one reason or another. Thus Sankhya was a venerated school of hoary antiquity but its history exhibits no phase that bears a genuine impact of the radical ways of thought introduced by the Nyāya - Vai aşika philosophers; so in the period of mature philosophization this school invariably attracted pissing attention but never more than passing attention, Then there was the Advaita Vedānta school of Gaudapāda and Sankara. It appeared on the scene somehow late but was destined to grow considerably influential as days went by. However, its arsenal of arguments was essentially a borrowing from Buddhist idealism and so whatever was ever said about the latter essentially applied to it too. But as a matter of fact, even in the · later works of the Nyāya-Vaiseșika and Mimamsā schools schools which had been uncompromising in their criticism of Buddhist idealism - polemics against Advaita Vedānta are a rare occurrence. Lastly, there was the Jaina school in whose history too a phase ensued when rational enquiries into the problems of logic and metaphysics were undertaken in right earnest. This phase appeared somewhat late but not very late, and yet the fact remains that the Jaina works representing even this phase were left almost entirely unnoticed by the other schools. Of this over all situation as it developed in the field of Indian philosophical speculation Jayanta in his Nyāyamañjari has drawn a very reliable picture so full of invaluable details.
Jayanta has composed his work by way of commenting on certain selected aphorisms of Nyāya-sūtra, the basic text of his school -- to be precise, on those so few aphorisms of the first chapter where the sixteen padārthas (= fundamental topics) posited

Page #12

INTRODUCTION
by this school have been defined (as also on those quite few aphorisms of the fifth chapter where the sub-classes of the last two padárthas have been defined). This way Jayanta allows himself full freedom to say, whatever he likes in connection with any of the topics in question, and as a matter of fact his is a thorough-going discussion taking within its purview a host of issues raised by the Nyāya school in the course of its age-long history. However, the way Jayanta deals with his subject-matter has a story to tell. For Nyāyasūtra was composed (rather composed out of a pre-existing material) at a period when the Nyāya school was in its utter infancy while Nyāyamañjari was composed at a period when it had reached fullest adulthood. Thus we are in considerable darkness as to the circumstance that gave rise to the Nyāya school with its sixteen padārthas but we can see with considerable clarity as to why Jayanta says what he says. In Jayanta's times a triangular contest between the Nyāya, Mimāṁsā and Buddhist schools of logic dominated the Indian philosophical scene, and of this contest one can form a very precise idea from his treatment of the first Nyāya padārtha, viz, pramāņa (= means of valid congition, also just valid cognition). This treatment comes about twothirds of . Jayanta's work and constitutes its cream. As for the remaining one-third, about half of it is devoted to the second Nyāya padārtha, viz. prameya (= object of valid cognition) and the rest to the fourteen padārthas that are then left. The padārtha prameya has got twelve sub-classes as follows: soul, body, sense-organ, thing-to-be-cognized, cognition, manas (=internal cognitive organ), activity, moral defilement, rebirth, fruit-of-action, pain, release-from-transmigration. It can easily be seen that the first six of these are ontological topics, the last six .ethical topics, but neither ontology nor ethics ever constituted a distinct subject-matter of Nyāya philosophy--its one distinct subject-matter being logic. And yet there must have been something in the circumstances of the time that the founding fathers of Nyāya school, thought it worthwhile to treat prameya as one of their sixteen padārthas and to divide it into twelve subclasses as described. Vātsyāyana argues that but for its treatment

Page #13

INDIAN LOGIC
of the fourteen padārthas samsaya ( = doubt ) etc. – that is, of the sixteen padārthas minus pramana and prameya -- the philosophy of his school would be reduced to the status of mere adhyātmavidyā (= spiritual science) just like Upanisads ; elsewhere too he attributes to this philosophy the generic designation adhyātmavidya'. From this one can surmise that the ethical problem of worldly bondage and release along with the allied ontological problems was considered to be the specific subject matter of the: discipline called adhyatmavidyā and that Upanişads were considered to be the model texts devoted to this discipline. So on Vátsyayana's reasoning his school was a school of adhyātmavidyā - though one with a distinction. Not that Vātsyāyana could not be mistaken about the intentions of the original Nyāyd authors, but some reasoning like his will alone . explain why prameya is oneof the sixteen Nyāya padārthas and in the manner described. But whatever might have been the intentions of the original Nyaya. authors, the subsequent history of the Nyaya school is the history of a school of logic pure and simple. True, even this school of logic subscribed to a very definite ontology but the details of this ontology were primarily formulated by the sister-school of Vaiseşika; hence it is that the exact nature of the six prameyas thati constitute ontological topics has to be comprehended in the light of what the Vaiseșika school says on the question. Similarly, this. school of logic subscribed to a very definite ethico-theology but the details of this ethico-theology were primarily formulated by the Purāņa specialists; hence it is that the exact nature of the six prameyas that constitute ethical topics has to be comprehended in the light of what the Purāņa specialists say on thequestion. However, even as a school of logic the Nyāya schoolt seems to have had a somewhat chequered history. For as Jaya. nta's procedure convincingly demonstrates, all the problems of logic could be well discussed under the padārtha called pramāna; and so if an exception be made of the padartha called prameya the question naturally arises as to what significance for a school of logic could be had by the fourteen padārthas samsaya etc. The following is the catalogue of these padārthas : samsaya (=doubt), prayojana

Page #14

INTRODUCTION
(=purpose), dệsțānta (= example), avayava(=steps in a syllogism), siddhanta (= established doctrine), tarka (= reflection), nirņaya (=demonstrative conclusion), vāda (= honest debate), jalpa (=debate possibly dishonest), vitanda (= empty objection-mongering), hetvābhāsa (= pseudo-probans), chala (= quibble), jāti (= faulty counter-argument), nigrahasthāna (=point of defeat). It can easily be seen that these fourteen padārthas are a random collection of topics relevant for an understanding of the phenomenon of public debate, and the conclusion is almost inescapable that the problems of public debate were the primary concern of the original Nyāya authors. But from the standpoint of logic the essence of a public debate lies in a reasoned exchange of arguments, and so it was gradually realized that only those among the fourteen topics in question are of logical significance which have some bearing or other on the problem of inference. Three of these topics as such became three technical topics connected with the problem of inference; they were drstānta, avayava and hetvābhāsa (drstānta also occurring as a part of avayava). The rest continued to be discussed in a rather perfunctory fashion and as a legacy of the days when not the problems of . logic but those of public debate were the Nyāya authors' primary .concern. This explains why just, one-sixth of Jayanta's work is sufficient to cover the fourteen topics in question--where too real problems of logic are directly taken up only in connection with those three topics drstānta, avayava and hetvābhāsa. Be that as it may, Nyāyamañjari can be best studied by being divided into three parts-viz. the first two-thirds devoted to the padārtha pramāna, the second one--sixth devoted to the padārtha prameya, the third onesixth devoted to the fourteen padārthas samsaya etc. As was just argued, the third part takes up certain miscellaneous problems related to logic and public debate, the second part certain miscellaneous problems related to ontology and ethics, but it is not the case that the first part exclusively takes up the problems related to logic. For in the first part too there are discussed certain important ontological problems and certain important ethicotheological problems. Thus it is in this part that Jayanta defends theism, defends the thesis that a word (rather sound) is

Page #15

INDIAN LOGIC
not a real-eternal substance but a momentary quality of sky, defends the thesis that a universal is not something imaginary but a real-eternal entity. What is still important, it is in this part that Jayanta defends his fundamental ethico-theological conviction which in a way acts like a running thread throughout Nyāyamañjarī in general and its first part in particular. Now it might sound odd that the author's fundamental ethico-theological conviction should act like a running thread in a text devoted to logic, and so the point as applied to Jayanta's performance deserves a serious consideration. Fortunately, for this purpose interesting and important material is provided by the opening section of Nyāyamañjari where Jayanta discusses the question as to what is the precise utility of studying Nyāya philosophy. Let us see how.
Jayanta takes his stand on the medieval Brāhmaṇical theologian's contention that the following fourteen are what might be called 'vidyāstbānas (= means of learning): four Vedas, six Vėdāngas, Purāņas, Dharmaśāstras, Nyāya, Mīmāṁsā. The marked contrast between an ancient Vedic phase and a 'medievel Purānic phase is. a characteristic feature of Brāhmaṇical theology. Thus Vedic theology and the allied ritual constitute one world, Purānic theology and the allied ritual constitụte another world altogether. However, even in the medieval Purānic phase lip-loyalty was invariably paid to Vedas - so much so that a medieval Purānist Brahmanical theologian would proudly call himself a Vedicis (never a Purānist) in contrast to the anti-Vedic heretics like Buddhists. Jainas, etc. True, Vedic ritual went out of use only gradually but that it went out of use is indisputable. The catalogue of 14 vidyāsthānas is a typical product of the medieval Purānic phase of Brāhmanical theology. That is why it includes 4 Vedas and 6 Vedāngas all right but significantly adds to them Purānas and Dharmasastras, on the one hand, Nyāya and Mīmāṁsā on the other. This was so far as verbal proclamation went; in point of fact the study of Vedas was gradually neglected, the five Vedangas had become purely secular disciplines of grammar, phonetic, etymology prosody, astronomy (the sixth in the form of Vedic rituál met the fate of Vedas themselves, in the form of

Page #16

* INTRODUCTION
domestic ritual became a part of Purāņic ritual, in the form of ethics was replaced by Dharmaśāstras). Thus for all practical purposes tlfe medieval Purānist Brahmin would learn all his theological ritual from Purānas, his ethics from Dharmaśāstras. It was in this background that Nyaya and Mimāns were cultivated, the former with a view to developing proficiency in theological disputation, the latter with a view to acquiring something more than a nodding acquaintance with Vedas and Vedic ritual. Jayanta decides to make a partisan use of this over-all situation. So like a typical medieval Purāņist Brāhmin he begins by declaring ihat Vedas are the basic source of all knowledge-worth-having and then goes on to show as to how Purāṇas-and-Dharmaśāstras, Vedāngas, Nyaya-and-Mimāṁsā stood related to Vedas. Jayanta must have known that theology and ritual as propounded in Vedas were markedly different from the same as propounded in Puiānas and Dharmaśāstras. So he simply says that Vedas enjoin the performance of a ritual like agnihotra, the acquisition of knowledgeconcerning-Soul, Dharmaśāstra enjoins the performance of certain rituals of their own, while Purānas taking recourse to srory-telling etc. develop the Vedic thmes theemselves.' To this is added that 5 Vedāngas (the sixth is omitted) are ultimately of use in comprehending the meaning of Vedas.? Then comes the contention that Mimāṁsā is directly of use in comprehending the meaning of Vedas. Lastly, it is argued that Nyāya is the most fundamental of all vidyasthānas ipasmuch as it is aimed at vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony without which vindication none will care to study Vedas or 10 take recourse to the rest of vidyāsthānas. It is Jayanta's understanding that Nyāya is aimed at vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony that acts as a running thread throughout Nyāyamañjari in general and its pramāņa-part in particular
Jayanta has quoted two verses which catalogue the 14 vidyāsihanas, and he argues that his school is mentioned in one of these by the word 'tarka', in the other by the word 'nyāyavistara' because both these words mean inference while it is his school alone which develops a doctrine of inference. In this connection

Page #17

INDIAN LOGIC
Jayanta notes that the Sānkhyas, Jainas and Ksapaņakas have too meagre a knowledge of inference, that the Buddhists though claiming a lot are in fact deficient in their knowledge of inference, that the Carvāka's are pitiably devoid of all knowledge of inference; and granting that the Buddhists have an adequate knowledge of inference the charge levelled against them is that they being antiVedic this knowledge of theirs is of no avail while vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony. About the Vaise şikas it is said that they are the Nyāya philosopher's own camp-followers," the point being that it is immaterial whether they do or do not have an adequate independent knowledge of inference. Jayanta thus makes clear that the chief preoccupation of a Nyaya philosopher is to master the doctrine of inference and that the Buddhists constitute his chief rival in this field. (Jayanta is here ominously silent about the Mimāṁsakas but the meaning of this silence we will learn after a while.) Concretely speaking, his meaning was that the Nyāya philosopher was alone willing and in a position to supply a knowledge of inference adequate for vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony. Now the realization that Nyāya philosophy had something special to do with the doctrine of inference was somehow there since very beginning (this was an obvious implication of the marked interest shown by the early Nyāya authors in the problems related to public debate). On the other hand, there was also always a realization that Nyaya philosophy was not a mere doctrine of inference (this was an obvious implication of the inclusion of prameya among the sixteen Nyāya padārthas). But Jayanta's way of arguing that Nyaya philosophy was not a mere doctrine of inference because it was a doctrine of inference aimed at vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony was typical of a medieval Puranist Brahmin whose zeal to champion the cause of Vedas was in inverse proportion to his actual acquaintance with the contents of Vedas. case, we have yet to learn of the special sense in which on Jayanta's showing Nyaya philosophy is aimed at vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony. But before answering this question Jayanta raises two more which are of some historical significance.

Page #18

INTRODUCTION
Thus parallel to the medieval Purāņic list of 14 vidyāsthānas which included Nyāya, there was an ancient list of 4 learnings (vidyā)' which included anviksiki. The three other items of the latter list were trayı, vārta and dandanīti respectively standing for Vedic theology-cum-ritual, economics and politics; and it was given out that anvıkşikj acted as a lamp in relation to all these three. Vātsyāyana submits that anvikșiki as thus understood is but Nyāya philosophy--to be precise, the Nyaya type of adhyatmavidyā. The concept of four learnings and the verse praising ānvikşiki quoted by Vātsyāyana also occur in Kautilya's Arthašāstra
he verse in a slightly different form), but the intriguing thing is that this text speaks of a triple division of anvi kşiki into Sankhya, Yoga and Lokāyata. Maybe, Kautilya was following a later verified tradition according to, which Yoga was a name for Nyaya, but even then Vätsyāyana's identification of anvīkşiki with Nyāya remains anomalous. If report from Kauțilya is reliable then ānvikșiki should mean a system of philosophy inclusive of a doctrine of inference – so that on this understanding Nyāya philosophy should be just one type of ānvikșiki and not the sole type of anvikșiki. In any case, ifānviksiki was to act as a lamp in relation to the remaining learnings' it c do so only in its capacity as a doctrine of inference. Jayanta, following in the footsteps of Vātsyāyana and the like, identifies canvikșiki with Nyāya and offers an etymology of the word ‘anvikşa' 'which should make it a synonym for 'anumāna' (Sanskrit for 'inference')-so that anviksiki means “a doctrine of inference'. Thus on his showing anvikşā (as also anumāna) is the type of cognition that arises in the wake of a perceptual or a scriptural type of cognition. However, even granting the validity of the proposed etymology of the word 'anvīşiki' the question remains whether it was a generic name or a proper name, if a generic name what type of discipline it stood for. Be that as it may, Jayanta's next query is as to how the 14 vidyā. -sthāpas of his list are to tally with the 4 learnings of that anancient list; in one word, his problem was as to wiry the 14 vidyasthānas included nothing parallel to vartā and dandaniti.

Page #19

10
INDIAN LOGIC
Jayanta's solution of his problem lies in suggesting that the four "learnings included theological as well as secular disciplines (alongwith anvikșikī) while the fourteen vidyasthānas included. only theological disciplines (along with Nyāya)'. Even then it is noteworthy that the ancient authors thought it worthwhile to contend that ānvikșiki acts as handmaid to theological as well as secular disciplines while Jayanta that Nyāya acts as handmaid to theological disciplines alone.'
Then Jayanta raises the somewhat ticklish question of the relationship of his school with the Mimāṁsā school. Thus the medieval Purāņist Brahmin would declare from the house top that Vedas are his ultimate source of authority but his real source of authority were Purānas; nevertheless, he represented the dominent trend of the Brāhmaṇical theology of the time and the Nyāya authors were the philosophical spokesmen of this trend. However, there also then existed a minority trend of Brahmaṇical theology whose preoccupation with the problems of Vedic ritualism was all-absorbing, and the Mimāmsa authors were the philosophical spokesmen of this trend. So the question before Jayanta was as to why the task of vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony should be entrusted to his Nyaya school and not to the Mimāṁsā school. 10 Jayanta first seeks to dismiss the question by submitting that the primary concern of the Mimāṁsa school is to conduct an investigation with the meaning of Vedas and not to vindicate the validity of Vedic testimony -- the latter being the primary concern of the Nyaya school.1 As a matter of fact, originally neither the Mimāṁsā school nor the Nyāya school was primarily interested in vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony--not the former because it was not at all interested in the problems of logic, not the latter because its interest in the problems of logic was of a general nature and not specially directed towards vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony. It was only in due course that the Mimāṁsā school developed a serious interest in the problems of logic and by that time the different schools of logic were passionately defending their respective cherished theologies. And since now both a Mimāṁsā philosophy and a Nyāya philo

Page #20

INTRODUCTION
sophy could designate their theology 'vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony' it was natural that one would dismiss as fake the other's vindilation of the validity of Vedic testimony. It was. in line with this attitude that Jayanta, even while conceding that the Mimāmsā school does undertake a vindication of the validity of Vedic testimony, declares that this vindication is nevertheless faulty.To The gravamen of his charge is that this school treats Vedas as an authorless composition while no composition can be deemed authoritative unless it is the composition of an autho; ritative person. 13 As it stands Jayanta's complaint makes sense but according to his school too Vedas are composed not by any human being but by God; and certainly the position that Vedas are composed by God is no less fantastic than the position that they are composed by nobody. But it is the contest between these two fantastic positions that is the central feature of Jayanta's treatment of verbal testimony, a treatment occupying about twothirds of the space devoted by him to the padārtha pramāņa. Thus after having investigated in the first chapter the nature of pramana in general and in the second chapter that of perception, inference and analogy--the three pramānas posited by the Nyāya school in addition to verbal testimony - Jayanta discusses in the Chapters third to sixth various questions related to verbal testimony. And this discussion on verbal testimony is so conducted that barring stray exceptions where the Buddhist or the like is the rival party the confrontation is always against some position or other maintained by the Mimāmsa school; ( the fourth Chapter is of exceptional significance inasmuch as it for the most part seeks to vindicate the authoritative character of Vedas on the basis of an actual examination of their contents, also inasmuch as it seeks to adjudge as to which other theological texts, proVedic or otherwise, are worthy of a respectful consideration). To be fair to Jayanta, let it however be conceded that barring that fourth chapter even his treatment of verbal testimony raises genuine philosophical issues from beginning till end. A perusal of the bare catalogue of these issues should suffice to convince the sceptic; taken in order they stand as follows:

Page #21

112
INDIAN LOGIC
Chapter III : (1) The definition of verbal testimony
(2) Verbal testimony is not a case of inference (3) Verbal testimony is a genuine means of valid
cognition (4) Refutation of the Mimāṁsā thesis that all
cognition is intrinsically valid (5) Defence of theism (6) Refutation of the Mimāṁsā thesis that a
word is an eternal substance ! Chapter IV : (7) Refutation of the Mimāṁsa thesis that Vedas
are an authorless composition ... Chapter V : (8) Refutation of the Buddhist thesis that a ‘uoi
versal' is something imaginary (9) Determination as to whether a word denotes a
'universal', a particular, or both (10) Determination as to wherein lies the meaning
of a sentence - Chapter VI : (11) Refutation of the doctrine of sphoța (accor
ding to which a word is an eternal, incomposite something standing over and above the
concerned constituent letters) (12) Determination as to how a sentence is made
of the concerned constituent words 3) Determination as to how the sentential mea
ning is yielded by the meaning of the concer
ned constituents (14) The science of grammar is competent to enable
one to distinguish between proper and impro
per words. This catalogue deserves careful study so as to see how upjust ..Jayanta is being to himself and his school when he gives out that
their primary concern is to vindicate the validity of Vedic testimony. For hardly few of the issues here enumerated have any direct bearing on this vindication; (that the subject-matter of the first two Chapters – for that matter, also that of the Chapters

Page #22

INTRODUCTION
13
seventh to twefth - has still less to do with this vindication goes without saying). Hence it is that even while taking due notice of it much should not be made of the fact that Jayanta's own understanding that the primary concern of Nyāya philosophy is to vindicate the validity of Vedic testimony acts as a running thread throughout Nyāyamañjari in general and its pramāna-part in particular. Even less should be made of Jayanta's further contention that Nyaya philosophy aimed at vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony has been in currency ever since the beginning of creation when God composed Vedas.'. Equally worthy of neglect. is Jayanta's rejoindor-to-an-objection that Aksapada -- the fabled founder of the Nyāya school - could well have acquired the necessary wisdom through performing a penance, worshipping a deity, or studying a text already current.15 For all this simply shows that Jayanta was just incapable of having any historical understanding of how Vedas came to be composed or how his own Nyāya school came into existence and grew.
After making preliminary remarks, of which the most significant ones we have just considered, Jayanta proceeds to offer
mment on the first aphorism of Nyāyasūtra. This aphorism enumerates the sixteen padarthas and declares that a knowledge regarding their essential nature leads to the attainment of moksa. And while commenting on it Jayanta does the following things : (1) argues that even a bare mention of the subject-matter of a text rouses in the reader a curiosity to go through it, (2) frames a one-sentence description of each of the sixteen padārthas, (3) settles grammatical part, and (4) argues why a text aimed at vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony should think it worthwhile to declare that a knowledge regarding the essential nature of the sixteen padārthas in question leads to the attainment of mokşa. Of those the point (4) is alone important and deserves some consideration, for it provides an interesting clue to the working of Jayanta's mind on certain fundamental questions of philosophy. In this connection the formulation of the opponent's obiection is brief but pointed; it runs as follows: "How is the. knowledge regarding the essential nature of the sixteen padārthas.

Page #23

INDIAN LOGIC
a means of attaining mokşa ? Moreover, the present discipline
ng aimed at vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony it is this vindication that ought to be undertaken and there is no use indulging in the jumbled task about sixteen padarthas". 16 The first part of the objection could be addressed to a Nyāya author at any time, the second part to a medieval Nyāya author like Jayanta according to whom the primary concern of his school was to vindicate the validity of Vedic testimony. Thus it was a common understanding in ancient and medieval India that topics like soul, body, bondage were relevant for comprehending the problem of moksa but it required some argumentation in order to prove that logical topics too were thus relevant. But the Nyāya authors were always emphasizing that a discussion of logical topics was a speciality of their school; at the same time they pointed out that topics proper to the problem of mokşa were covered by them under the padārtha prameya. Their point was that the latter topics were better understood in case they were studied in the light of the former topics. Essentially all this is said by Jayanta too while answering the objection under consideration - but in such a manner that the task of vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony equally comes in limelight. Thus he begins by declaring that the knowledge of the twelve prameyas is directly a means of attainting moksa. 17 This was understandable, but instead of next submitting that the knowledge of the remaining fifteen padārthas is of help in comprehending the nature of the twelve prameyas he gives a certain twist to his argument. So what we are actually told next is that the knowledge of the twelve prameyas is derived from scripture alone.18 Coming from a Nyāya author this is a somewhat puzzling remark, for it was rather the strength of the Nyāya school that it discussed metaphysico-ethical problem in the light of logical principles - not on the basis of an appeal to scriptural authority (as did the Vedanta school, say). Jayanta's own treatment of these twelve prameyas is a strong confirmation of that, for, it is almost altogether independent of any scriptural props. The simple fact was that being a typical medieval Purānist Brāhmin, Jayanta would appeal to the authority of Vedas in season and out of season; hence his present submission that the

Page #24

INTRODUCTION
15
knowledge of the twelve prameyas posited by his school is derived from scripture alone. What follows is still more curious. For now Jayanta proceeds to underline 'the utility of the padārtha pramana. But instead of simply saying that the four pramānas posited by his school are an authentic means of valid cognition, he argues that the authoritative character of a scripture is established with the help of an inference while the formulation of a relation of invariable concomitance so essential for all inference inevitably requires the help of perception so that the three pra māņas verbal testimony, inference and perception hinge together; to this is added that the fourth pramāna analogy too is of use in certain practical cases. 19 Here again Jayanta is presenting his case in a rather topsyturvy forni. For his own treatment of pramāna makes an orderly progress by first covering perception, then inference, then analogy and lastly verbal testimony - while handling scripture as a particular case of verbal testimony. True, Jayanta's coverage of verbal testimony is inordinately lengthy and in the course of it there appears that theologically motivated fourth Chapter, but even then no impression is here created as if the investigation into, perception, inference and analogy is just preparatory to the investigation into verbal testimony. Nor is an impression created as if the investigation into verbal testimony is primarily aimed at demonstrating that Vedas are a composition by God and not an authorless composition. As a matter of fact, the demonstration in question (occurring towards the beginning of the fourth chapter is of a modest bulk: (significantly the demonstration of the allied metaphysical thesis that God exists and that a word is not an eternal substance - a demonstration occurring in the third Chapter-is much more lengthy and that unmistakably proves that Jayanta's genuine interest lies in philosophical rather than theological problems). The simple reason why Jayanta is presently over-emphasizing the importance of the problem of verbal testimony in general and scriptural testimony in particular is that he has persuaded himself that the primary concern of the Nyāya school is to vindicate the validity of Vedic testimony. "The same attitude leads him to say that the fourteen padārthas samsaya etc. are posited by his school because they are of help

Page #25

16
INDIAN LOGIC
in all process of demonstration – while demonstrating the validity of Vedic testimony is so vital a human concern.20 That the parenthetic clause in question is just an irrelevant proclamation of faith is proved from Jayanta's own treatment of those fourteen topics which has nothing special to do with the task of vindicating the validity of Vedic testimony. Thus the contrast between the proposition Jayanta makes in the present introductory part of his text and the performance he actually puts up within the body of this text is too important and conspicuous to be missed. For if exception be made of its fourth Chapter this text preaches no theology but offers a rational account of certain important logical problems and allied metaphysical problem (the problems of ethics too being touched upon while investigat. ing the last six of the twelve prameyas). This account certainly draws upon the entire past tradition of the Nyāya school but that was only natural, what is noteworthy is that the author's. assimilation of the traditional material is so masterly. As things stood, this assimilation required a thorough acquaintance with the logical findings of two rival schools, viz. Buddhist and Mimamsa, and this acquaintance too our author exhibits in good measure. An additional attraction is his highly ornate style of writing, a style that has turned his philosophical masterpiece into a veritable literary masterpiece. 'All this should become evident as we gradually familiarize ourseves with the contents of Nyāyamañjari following the original order of exposition. As has already been noted, the first Chapter investigates pramāna in general, the second Chapter perception, inference and analogy, the third to sixth Chapters verbal testimony, the seventh to nineth Chapters investigate the padārtha prameya, the tenth to twelfth Chapters the remaining fourteen padārthas samsaya etc. [The already examined introductory discussion is a part of the first Chapter itself.] We take these Chapters one by one, introducing sub-divisions as need arises.

Page #26

CHAPTER 1 ..
.
| PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
In this Chapter Jayanta ofiers comment on the single Nyāyasūtra aphorism which is to the effect that perception, inference. analogy, verbal testimony are (four) pramaņas. And he accomplishes his task by way of doing the following four things :
(1) formulating his own definition of pramāna and criticising the rival definitions advanced by the Buddhists, Mimām sakas and Sankhyas,
(2) criticizing the Buddhist position that there are only two pramaņas, viz. perception and inference,
(3) criticizing the Mimāṁsā position that arthāpatti is an additional pramāņa,
(4) criticizing the Kumarilite Mimāṁsa position that abhāva is an additional pramāņa.
The four points deserve separate consideration inasmuch as each has to do with a distinct aspect of the general problem of pramāņa. We take them up one by one.
; (1) On Defining Pramāņa The early Nyāya authors were keenly interested in determining as to how many types of cognition there are. They came to the conclusion that these types are four in all, viz. perception, inference, verbal testimony, analogy; (the first three are naturally understandable, the fourth is somewhat technical.) It was understood that cognition might be valid or invalid, but the importance of the former was emphasized by talking of valid cognition rather than cognition in general (the word for valid cognition being pramāna, that for cognition in general iñāna)... Again, it was understood that one type of valid cognition differs from another because the two have got different causes, but the concept 'cause 'of valid cognition' was not made a distinct topic . of discussion. But it was this concept that became central in the

Page #27

18
NDIAN LOGIC
logical enquiries of the later Nyāya authors with whom the word "pramāna' stood not for valid cognition as such: but for cause of valid cognition. The reason for this shift of usage was that the later Nyāya authors were not satisfied with a mere classification of valid cognition but wanted to determine the precise conditions under which the different types of valid cognition took their rise. This often created a technical problem when a later Nyāya author would assign to the word 'prąmā a' occurring in an old text the meaning 'cause of valid cognition' whereas the originally intended meaning was 'valid cognition' as such, However, that was not a much serious consequence; serious aspects of the problem came to light when a deep probe was undertaken into the concept 'cause of valid cognition'. For in this connection distinction began to be made between cause and chief-cause (lit, the most efficacious cause) and it was given out hat pramāna means not just cause of valid cognition but chief-cause of valid cognition. The distinction in question is ultimately traceable to the grammarians' discussion on nominal cases-- in Sanskrit called karaka (lit, cause-of-action). The theory was that in a sentence a noun could be related to the verb in seven ways inasmuch as the thing denoted by a noun could in seven ways act as a cause to the action denoted by the verb; the seven karakas are seven cause-of-action as thus understood. And then it was maintained that the kāraka called karana (lit. instrument) is the chief (e most efficacious) cause-of-action. When the Nyāya authors drew a distinction between cause and chief cause they had in mind this whole discussion undertaken by the grammarian. But the fact was that the grammarian had not formulated a full-fledged theory of causation which is what the Nyāya authors really needed; (not that the grammarian's discussion had no bearing on the problem of causation, but it was not itself a discussion of this problem). So these authors made their own analysis of the cases of causation met with in everyday life. Thus from their point of view all causation requires an agent, an instrument and an objective. For example, when a wood-cutter `produces with his axe a cut-in-the-tree, the woodcutter is the agent, the axe the instrument, the cut-in-the-tree the objective; similarly, when

Page #28

PRAMĀNA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHĀVA
a potter produces a jar with his wheel-cum-stick the potter is the agent, the wheel-cum-stick the instrument, the jar the objective. Then it was noticed that here the instrument is set in operation on some raw material; e.g. the wood-cutter's axe operates on the tree, the potter's wheel-cum-stick operates on clay. Keeping all this in mind an instrument (karana) - which in line with the grammarians'usage pertaining to the kāraka (=causeof-action) designated karana (= instrument) was called the chief (= most efficacious ) cause - was defined as the cause which exhibits an operation''. This model of causal analysis where an instrument was understood to be the chief ( = most efficacious) cause and the cause exhibiting an operation the Nyāya authors applied to the cases of causing valid cognition. As a general rule, pramāna was defined as the chief cause (= instrument) of valid cognition and in the case of each of the four types of valid cognition the search was for an instrument' and an operation'. The difficulty with the Nyāya authors' model was that it was suitable (if at all) for a study of physical operations while cognition is an essentially mental operation. Hence it was that its employment for the study of perception, which is somehow a physical operation made some sense while its employment for the study of inference etc. which are largely a mental operation remained more or less a technicality. Thus perception takes place when a sense-organ comes in contact with a physical object; so the Nyāya author could say that here the cognizer soul ( the agent ) produces perceptual cognition ( =objective ) using the sense-organ as 'instrument and its contact-with-the physicalobject as : "aperation'. However, perceptual cognition as thus described will rather be the physiological process called sensory experience whereas according to the Nyāya author such cognition also includes the mental process called 'identification of the object perceived,' a mental process which remains unaccounted for in terms of the proposed model of causal analysis. On the other hand, in the case of inferential cognition it just makes no sense to speak of an 'instrument' and an operation'; even then we are told that here 'cognition of probans' acts as 'instrument' whilo 'wagnition that the probans belongs to the locus and stands

Page #29

20
INDIAN LOGIC
related to the probandum by way of invariable concomitance': acts as 'operation,' a statement which is purely technical. [ In this corpection an anomalous situation sometimes arose when an author would speak as if 'operation' is 'instrument'. Such an. author would define an instrument not as 'the cause which exhibits an operation but as "the cause which immediately brings forth. the effect' Thus on this understanding, in the case of perceptual cognition the instrument' is sense-object-contact (not the sense-organ), in the case of inferential cognition it is 'cognition that the probans belongs to the locus and stands related to the probandum by way of invariable concomitance' (not cognition of probans'). This way of looking at things was the result of clea forgetting the historical origins of the concept of 'instrument'; what was remembered was that an instrument is the chief cause, what was not remembered was that an instrument is something set in operation on a raw material.] .
In the history of Nyāya school Jayanta is famous for his outright rejection of this whole approach towards the problem of, defining 'pramāņa'. He conceded that 'pramāna' means not valid cognition as such but cause of valid cognition. But he refused to distinguish between a chief cause and the subsidiary causes and maintained that the total causal aggregate, inclusive of factors. physical as well as mental-which produces valid cognition is to be called 'pramāna'; (by the way he also defined valid cognition as 'that apprehension of an object, which is free from error and free from doubt'but this is an element in his definition of pramāna to which no colleague of his — as a matter of fact, no logician – would take exception.a)
Jayanta considers three objections that might possibly be urged against his definition. Thus one might argue that since pramāna means instrument of valid cognition while an instrument has to be chief cause the total causal aggregate of valid cognition cannot be called pramāņa because there is nothing subsidiary in relation to which this aggregate acts as chief; again, one might argue that since pramāna means instrument of valid cognition while an

Page #30

PRATĪVAARTJĀ?ATTI AND ABHĀVA
21
instrument is what the agent concerned applies to the object concerned, the total causal aggregate of valid cognition cannot be called piam ini beciuse the agent concerned and the object concerned are already a part of this aggregate; lastly, one might argus that the total causal aggregate of valid cognition cannot be the instrument of valid cognition because about an instrument all must be in a position to say that the action concerned is performed through it while nobody says that valid cognition is performed through the concerned total causal aggregate. The following is how these objections are answered.
(1) Jayanta considers three alternative senses in which a thing might be called chief cause, and his understanding is that in all those senses th: concerned total causal aggregate alone deserves to be so called. Thus one. might say that a chief cause is that thing in the absence of which the effect concerned would not come into existence; Jayanta replies that since the effect concerned would not come into existence in case the concerned causal aggregate is d:ficient even by a single element no such element rather than any other can be called a chief cause while this causal aggregate taken as a whole can be called a chief cause. 4 Again, one might say that a chief cause is that thing whose immediate presence brings into existence the effect concerned; Jayanta replies that each and every member of the concerned causal aggregate is such that its immediate presence brings into existence the efect concerned (lie first argues that a member of this causal aggregate which is present there since long is as much necessary as the one which is present there just immediately).” Lastly, one might say that a chief cause is that thing whose sudden presence (while other members of the concerned causal aggregate are already present) brings into existence the effect concerned, Jayanta once more replies that the description applies to each and every member of the concer ned crasil aggregate. It can easily be seen that the three senses under consideration are closely interrelated and each is based on the understanding that some one member of the concerned causal aggregate is somehow a chief cause. This understanding Jaya Ea explodes by simply arguing that one member of this aggregate

Page #31

INDIAN LOGIC
is as much indispensable as another so that if anything is at all to be designated 'chief cause it is this aggregate itself.' But then Jayanta is confronted with the objection that a chief cause is so called in relation to something that is called subsidiary cause while nothing can act as subsidiary to the concerned causal aggregate as a whole; he replies that this aggregate acts as chief cause in relation to each of its individual members taken singly, his point being that this aggregate can and an individual member of it cannot bring into existence the effect concerned. In this connection Jayanta thinks it necessary to emphasize that even if a causal aggregate does not stand over and above the concerned. individual members' as does a composite substance over and above its component parts the appearance of this aggregate on one hand and the concerned individual members on the other is a plain fact. Obviously, it is on this supposition that he feels justified to posit the relation of chief - and - subsidiary between a causal'aggregate and its individual members?o and it is on this very supposition. that he answers the second objection..!
(2) The second objection was one to the effect that if the instrument be identical with the total causal aggregate then since the agent concerned and the object concerned too would now be a part and parcel of the instrument concerned it should not be possible to say that the agent concerned 'applies the instrument concerned on the object concerned. Jayanta's reply emphasizes that the agent concerned and the object concerned do not cease to be distinctly visible even within the body of the concerned causal aggregate, so that there is nothing incongruous about saying that the agent concerned applies the instrument concerned on the object concerned. 11 The difficulty with this reply is that it seems to be the very nature of an instrument that the agent concerned and the object concerned be two entities absolutely apart from it. Even earlier Jayanta has contended that an agent is called a cognizer and an object a thing cognized only when the two form a part and parcel of the causal aggergate that produces cognition. 19 But to say that the agent concerned and the object concerned form a part and parcel of the causal aggregate that produces cognition is not

Page #32

PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHAVA
to say that they are a part and parcel of the instrument that prodduces cognition. As a matter of fact, Jayanta's thesis on causal aggregate is strongly reminiscent of the Buddhist way of Igoking at things while his thesis on instrument is the usual Nyāya way of looking at things, and the two ways are in a way incompatible with one another. Thus while explaining any case of causatiott - voluntary or otherwise - the Buddhist would speak of a causal aggregate producing an effect and he would make no fundamental distinction within the body of this aggregate. On the other hand, the Nyāya author would exclusively speak of voluntary causation (as a result of espousing theism he even believes that all causation is voluntary causation) and in this connection he would speak of an agent applying an instrument on an object. Thos even if the Nyāya author could see the point of speaking about a causal aggregate producing an effect he would include within this aggregate the agent, the object as well as the instrument; but for this very reason he would refuse to concede that this causal aggregate is to be called instrument. That Jayanta was somehow aware of this difficulty will become evident soon, but before coming to that point let us consider his reply to the third objection urged against his position.
(3) The third objection is one to the effect that in common Irlance we never say that one cognizes an object through the concerned causal aggregate. Jayanta rcplies that that is so because this aggregute being but of tire form of a totality of its constituent members it is not spoken of in common parlance. 13 This reply is patently dogmatic and as a matter of fact Jayanta should have reported : "No. we say that one cognizes through the concerned causal aggregate.” Even so, Jayanta does make an important point: for he in essence submits that about each and every member of the concerned causal aggregate we can say that one cognizes an object through it. [He was not categorical about
at because of his old difficulty that the statement in question cannot be made about the agent concerned and the object concerned.I' Jayanta's argumentation clearly implies that in his view his Nvaya colleagues have been misled by the grammarian's

Page #33

24
INDIAN LOGIC
talk of seven karakas. Thus he points out that not only do we say 'one sees through a lamp', 'one sees through eyes' but we also say 'one cooks through the cookingpan'. This way the orthodox Nyāya authors are told that there is no sense in maintajping that eyes are and a lamp is not the instrument' of perceptual cognition. Similarly, they are told that from the point of view of causal analysis it is a sheer grammatical accident that one noun in a sentence occurs accompanied by the instsumental case-ending, another accompanied by the locative case-ending or the like; e.g. from this point of view the statement 'rice is boiled in the cooking pan' is equivalent to the statement 'rice is boiled through the cookingpan', the idea expressed being that the cooking. pan is a member of the causal aggregate that brings about boiling-of-rice.
After thus disposing of the three objections urged against his position, Jayanta adopts a rather curious course. For now he quotes without refuting the view of certain otheis' according to w not the total causal aggregate that produces cognition but this aggregate minus the agent concerned and the object concerned constitutes instrument, their point being that it is incongruous to call the same thing an agent or an. object in one capacity, an instrument in another capacity. 15 (Since no other hitherto available Nyāya work defends on the question under consideration a position like that of Jayanta, it is to be surmised that in this connection he was a member of some obscure small circle which had its own inner-differences on secondary points,] Obviously, on this view one can be categorical that about each and every thing constituting instrument - not about any one particular such thing - it can be said that one cognizes an object through it, a point Jayanta hastens to make. 16 Here again an implicit reference is made to the grammarian's theory of seven kārakas though criticism against it is levelled in a rather subdued tone. Thus it is argued that the act of producing cognition requires just thr kārakas, viz. agent, object and instrument even if an act like cooking might iequire an additional kāraka in the form of locus

Page #34

PRAMANA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
25
or the like.17 Thus instead of insisting that in the case of the act of cooking the cooking pan is to be called an instrument rather than anything else it is now conceded that it might be called a locus and not an instrument. The concession is not warranted, because an act of voluntary causation really does not require more than three factors - viz. an agent, an object (=raw material), an instrument; (that the instrument might be a complex made up of several sub-factors does not affect the main point). In any case, the noteworthy thing is the insistence that the act of producing cognition requires just three factors, viz an agent, an object, an . instrument. Lastly, Jayanta notes that on this new view it becomes easy to answer the old question as to what it is in relation to which the instrument is to act as chief cause; the answer obviously is that it acts as chief cause in relation to the agent and the object, an answer buttressed by emphasizing the earlier skirted point that even while saying 'one cognizes through the instrument' we never say 'one cognizes through the agent', 'one cognizes through the object’. 1 8
After thus formulating a definition of pramāņa and chiefly defending it against the objections coming from the side of his own Nyāya colleagues, Jayanta proceeds to examine certain rival 'views maintained in this connection, viz. the Buddhist view (considered in two separate instalments), the Mimāmsā view the Sankhya view (considered just in passing). These views as examined by Jayanta deserve a close study because they throw important light on the ontological presuppositions of the logical doctrines developed by the schools in question. Certainly, in broad essentials these schools were agreed not only as to what cognition means but also as to what the chief cognition-types perception, inference and verbal testimony mean, and yet they differed rather violently so far as it concerned the question of determining the ontological status of cognition. For example, the Buddhists, Naiyayikas as well as Kumārilite Mimāmsakas maintained that cognition is a mental phenomenon like pleasure, pain, desire, effort etc., but they drew very different conclusions from this very position. Thus the Buddhists argued that just as it is impossible

Page #35

26
INDIAN LOGIC
for pleasure, pain etc. to arise and yet remain unperceived, it i impossible for cognition to do so. On the other hand, the Naiyāyika even while conceding that pleasure, pain etc. cannot remain unperceived saw no difficulty about supposing that cognition might remain unperceived; however, they too held that it is in principle possible for cognition to be made an object of perception. Lastly, the Kumārilite Mimāṁsakas agreed with the Buddhists and Naiyayikas that pleasure, pain etc. cannot remain unperceived and yet they declared that it is in principlo 'impossible for cognition to be made an object of perception. Then take another point of difference obtaining between these three groups of logicians. Thus the Buddhists, Naiyayikas as well as Kumārilite Mimāṁsakas maintained that cognition, being a mental phenomenon, is no property of a body or of a bodily organ. However, tlie Buddhists further opined that the mental world of a person constitutes an uninterrupted series of momentary states each possibly an amalgam of cognition, pleasure, pain, desire, effort etc. On the other hand, the Naiyāyikas held that cognition, pleasure, pain, desire, effort etc. are specific qualities of an abiding substance soul which might possibly be devoid of all such specific qualities and in which not more than one such specific quality can be born at one and the same time. Lastly, the Mimāṁsakas broadly shared the Naiyāyika's view just set forth but they held a characteristic position as regards cognition; thus according to them cognition is an operation undertaken by a soul, an operation which results in the object concerned becoming cognized just as cooking is an operation which results in the raw rice becoming cooked rice. This much preliminary information should enable one to better appreciate Jayanta's forthcoming polemic against the Buddhists and Mimamsakas.
Jayanta begins by launching a series of attacks against the Buddhist thesis on pramāņa Let us recall that Jayanta define's pramana as the total causal aggregate - inclusive of factors physical as well as mental - which produces valid cognition. We have hinted that this definition heretical from the standpoint of Nyāya isstrongly reminiscent of the Buddhist way of looking at things.

Page #36

| PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
27
And yet this definition is not acceptable to the Buddhist because he has chosen to give the name pramāna to a different thing altogether. Thus according to him a cognition bears the form of its object while it is of the nature of an apprehension of this object; and he maintains that this cognition insofar as it bears the form of its object is pramāna, the same insofar as it is of the nature of an apprehension of this object is pramāņaphala (= the result produced by pramāņa). While defending this rather odd position the Buddhists make two points as follows:
(1) Pramāna and pramāṇaphala are not different from one another because they are two aspects of one and the same cognition:
(2) the designation ‘pramāņa' cannot be attributed to anything but a cognition.
These two points Jayanta seeks to demolish one after apother and his intention is tolerably clear. Thus according to Jayanta pramāna is something that includes factors physical as well as mental. Now his word for mental factor is bodha' which can be better translated as "cognition' (but has been translated as 'mental factor' because its antonym "abodha' must be translated as “physical factor'). And then his opening sentence can be translated in two ways so that both those Buddhist points can be covered simultaneously even if they are criticized one after another (where some text - part which should initiate the criticism of the second point is missing).19 When translated one way the sentence means "those according to whom cognition itself is pramāna are not subtle-witted' and this will initiate the criticism of the first Buddhist point; when translated another way it means "those according to whom cognition alone is pramāna are not subtle-witted' and this will initiate the criticism of the second Buddhist point. The following is how Jayanta argues against the two points in question.
(1) It is argued that the resulting cognition itself should not be called pramāņa because the very etymology of the worp sugg -

Page #37

28
INDIAN LOGIC
ests that pramāna is what causes valid cogoition - not this valid cognition itself. 20 Jayanta kaows that an appeal to etymology will not help him much in ismuch as the word pramāna can also rightly mean valid cognition itself. 21 So the real difference between him and the Buddhist is simply technical and nothing can be done about that; for the two have exercised their right to define the word 'pramāņa' in anyway they like. Even so, the fact remains that the Buddhist definition is pretty odd.. ..
(2) Since the Buddhist attributes the designation (pramäna' - to an aspect of the resulting valid cognition itself, the conten
tion that nothing that is not a cognition can be pramāna ought to be a platitude on his part. But he also intends to imply that nothing that is not a cognition can be pramāna even in the Naiyāyika's sense of the term. Așd this implication Jayanta contends by pointing out that the causal aggregate that produces valid cognition can well include non-cognitive (=physical) factors ; thus on his showing a word is such a factor in the case of verbal testimony, a lamp or a sense-organ in the case of perception, a probans in the case of inference.2 By the way, Jayanta also quoted examples of cognitive factors that might be included in a pramāna; thus knowledge-of-the-qualifier is such a factor in the case of perception, knowledge of, probans in the case of inference, perception of similarity in the case of analogy, hearing of words in the case of verbal testimony.23 [As will become clear there, this part of Jayanta's argumentation can be better appreciated when viewed in the context of examining the Buddhist contention that the only two pramānas are perception and inference)
Jayanta next criticizes a Buddhist position wbich is rejected by the school of Dingāga - Dharmakirti itself, a school that alone matters for our purpose. Thus according to this school a perceptual cognition manages to grasp its object because it is produced by this object, to be more precise, because this object happens to be a member of the causal aggregate that produces this cogaition. But according to the position under consideration a cognration and its object come into existence simultaneously - so that

Page #38

ÞRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHÄVA
29A
it must offer some other explanation of how this cognition manages to grasp this object. As Jayanta presents it the explanation consists in submitting that this cognition and this object have got the same causal aggregate whose two nembers are the object as occurring at the immediately preceding moment and the cognition as occurring at the immediately preceding moment, ** it being the case that in the production of this cognition the latter acts as chief cause and the former as subsidiary cause while in the production of this object the opposite happens. 4 Really speaking, this is simply repeating in the technical language of Buddhist momentarism the contention that a cognition and its object come into existence simultaneously - and no explanation of what enables this cognition to grasp this .object. Jayanta rejects this alleged explanation or the ground that a cognition and its object cannot come into existence simultaneously, the same ground on which it was rejected by the school of Dinnāga - Dharmakirti; but curiously, instead of saying - as was done by this school - that it is understandable if this cognition comes into existence immediately after this object, Jayanta actually says that it is understandable if this cognition comesin to existence immediately before this object.25 Jayanta also rejects this explanation on more general ground that if the same causal aggregate produces x as well as y, x and y cannot be distinguished from one another - so that the opponent should be in no position to tell as to what distinguishes a cognition from its object; but this criticism of his stands or falls with his general criticism of Buddhist: momentarism, as he actually confesses. 96
Lastly, Jayanta criticizes the famous Buddhist position that a cognition bears the form of its object. This criticism has a deep import and is logically connected with the forthcoming criticism , of the corresponding position maintained by the Kumārilite Mimāmsaka. Thus when a cognitive organ is appropriately applied on an object x cognition-of-x takes place and after that has happened the cognizer concerned is in a position to deal with x more effectively than before. This fundamental situation is under--

Page #39

30
INDIAN LOGC
stood differently by the Buddhist, the Naiyayika and the Kumarilite Mimārsaka. The Buddhist says that x is cognized not directly but by way of cognizing cognition-of-x and finding that it bears the form of x. The Naiyāyika and the Kumārilite Mimārsaka find this stand untenable, for with them cognition-of-r is itself a cognizing of x and not something which when cognized results in a cognizing of x. It is essentially this criticism that Jayanta presently advances against the Buddhist even if his words seem to relate to a different subject-matter. For he first takes exception to the Buddhist contention that unless a cognition bears the form of its object there will be no way to distinguish cognition : from cognition-of-y (the suggestion that the two cognitions will differ inasmuch as the former is caused by x the latter by r is rejected on the ground that the causal aggregate of a cognition includes not only its object but so many other factors whose form this cognition does not bear). Jayanta remarks that this whole position the Buddhist maintains with a view to lead ng support to idealism and that it will be considered while refuting idealism.27 But towards the end he actually hints at his line of attack. For he argues that the fact that cognition-of-x is caused by x while cognition-of-y is caused by y should suffice co distinguish these two cognitions just as according to the Buddluist this fact suffices to explain why the former cognition bears che form of x, the latter bears the form of y, his point being that the thesis of 'formed' cognition possesses no advantage over the rival thesis of “unformed' cognition.28 And Jayanta's submission that the thesis of 'formed' cognition has been maintained with a view to leading support to idealism is valid inasmuch as that is one serious use that the Buddhists have made of this thesis, cor supporting the idealist standpoint they have actually argued tijat there is no warrant to posit an external object when all that we ever cognize is not this object itself but a cognition bearing the form of this object. However, from the standpoint of logical -studies the more particular criticism against the Buddhist stand is 'that it makes no sense to say that x is cognized not directly but by way of cognizing cogaition-of-x. This criticism too Jayanta levels but again in words that seem to arelte to a different

Page #40

PRAMANA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA.
31
subject-matter. Thus he submits that the Buddhist claiming to be realist has no right to posit an external object inasmuchas on the latter's supposition such an object can be cognized neither through inference, nor through perception, nor through implica -not through inference because inference of x presupposes perception of x, nor through perception because that is denied by the Buddhist himself, nor through implication because that way too an object is cognized not directly but by way of cognizing the cognition concerned.39 The submission is not made by Jayanta in these very words but this is what it virtually amounts to. Even so the difficulty with it is that the Buddhist will retort that it is the very nature of cognition that no type of it - whether perception, inference or implication - can ever cognize an object directly but always by way of cognizing itself and finding itself to bear the form of this object. Hence it is that criticism should have been pointedly directed against this basic Buddhist understanding of the phenmenon of cognition.
Thus closes the first instalment of the criticism Jayanta directed against the Buddhist definition of pramāna. In this connection he has taken exception to the following four positions :
(1) that pramāņa is one with pramānaphala (2) that.no non-cognitive factor can act as pramāņa ; (3) that a cognition and its object come into existence
. simuftaneously (4) that a cognition bears the form of its object.
The position (1) has been attributed to the advocate of the position (3) as also to that of the position (4).3° And it is referring to this position (1) that Jayanta makes transition to his criticism of the Kumārilite Mimāmsā definition of pramāna. As was noted above, when a cognitive organ is appropriately applied to an object x cognition-of-x takes place. We have also seen how Jayanta criticizes the Buddhist understanding of this phenomenon, a criticism that the Kumārilite Mjmāmsaka shares. But then arises a point where the Kumārilite Mimāṁsaka parts com

Page #41

32
INDIAN LOGIC
· pany with the Nyāya fellow-fighter. For the former attributes the
designation 'cognition' not to what results from the operation of a cognitive organ but to this operation itself, whereas according to the latter cognition is a quality produced in the soul concerned as a result of this operation. Again, on the Kumārilite's showing what results from the operation in question is a property called 'cognizedness' belonging to the object concerned. Lastly, it is his understanding that the operation in question is not something obsesvable but posited by way of implication in order to account for this 'cognizedness' which in its turu is something observable. This whole position maintained by the Kumārilite Jayanta seeks to assail. Against the Buddhist, Jayanta had argued thắt the former attributes the designation 'pramāņa’ not to what produces valid cognition but to the resultant valid cognition itself; the Kumārilite now dissociates himself from the Buddhist by pointing out that according to the former too the designation 'pramāņa’ is to be attributed to valid cognition itself but that this valid cognition is not a result but an operation whose own result is 'cognizedness' produced in the object concerned.31 In this connection he elaborates his general theory of 'operation' and applies it to the case of cognition. 32 Thus on his showing in the case of all operation the different members of the concerned causal aggregate act in their respective ways in order to bring about the result concerned, it being further maintained that this operation is something different from the observable acts of the different members of the concerned causal aggregate, is itself not something observable. and is to be inferred from the result concerned. For example, cooking is an operation as a result of which raw rice becomes cooked rice, and in the course of it the causal elements like fuel, cooking-pan, raw rice etc. act in their respective ways; similarly, cognition is an operation as a result of which a hitherto uncognized object becomes a cognized object, and in the course of it. the causal elements like eye, light, object etc. act in their respective ways. And just as the cooking operation is itself not something observable and is to be inferred from the fact that raw

Page #42

PRAMANA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
rice bas become cooked rice, similarly the cognitive operation is itself not something observable and is to be inferred from the fact that a hitherto uncognized object has become a cognized object. The Kumārilite thesis on operation in general and cognitive operation in particular Jayanta suspects to be a product of fear against Buddhist idealism. 33 Thus beginning with the position that an. object is cognized, not directly but by way of cognizing a cognition that bears the form of this object the Buddhist ended with the position that there is no object apart from cognition; to Jayanta it seems that the Kumärilite fondly seeks to avoid such a degradation by maintaining that a cognition is cognized not directly but by way of drawing an inference from the fact that the object concerned has become a cognized object (it is a fond endeavour because an object cannot be cognized as something cognized unless the cognition concerned is already cognized). Jayanta. perhaps correctly fathoms the psychological motivation of the Kumārilite, but logically the latter's position seems to be more tenable. Thus as was noted above, as a result of cognizing an object the cognizer concerned is in a position to deal with this object better than before; it is this property of an object that is to be called cognize dness atid the 'cognition concerned is cognized only to the extent this property is cognized. This is the logical crux of the Kumarilite contention that a cognition is cognized not by way of perception but by way of drawing an inference from object-cognizedness. The Nyāya authors, on the other hand, believe that a cognition can be perceived as soon as it is born in the form of a quality of soul, just as pleasure, pain etc. can be thus perceived; but such an instantaneous inspection of a cognition can at the most consist in the bare realization that this cognition has taken place, a realization that is no cognition of this cognition in any worthwhile sense. Be that as it may, the present contest is between the Kumārilite position that cognition is an unobservable operation undertaken by the concerned causal aggregate with a view to producing the property cognizedness in the object concerned and the Nyāya position that it is
3

Page #43

INDIAN LOGIC
an observable quality produced in the soul concerned by the concerned causal aggregate.
ar aggregate.
7 Jayanta begins by arguing that even if cognition be of the form of an operation - that is, action - it should not be something unobservable because it is the Kumārilite's own position that an action belonging to an observable substance (like soul) is sometbing observable; to this it is added that if all action is of the form of an unobservable operation undertaken by a causal aggregate then an infinite regress is unavoidable inasmuch as the action of a member of this causal aggregate will require another causal aggregate and so on ad infinitum. 3 4 'The opponent pleads that the members of a causal aggregate come together to bring about something and that this something is the operation concerned; Jayanta replies that these members bring about nothing save the result concerned.8 5 The opponent insists that the members of a causual aggregate come together to bring about an action; Jayanta first replies that these members do not come together to bring about something unobservable, the point being that they come together to bring about the result itself which is something observable, but then he goes on to add that each of these members does bring about an action which is specific to it and is something observable, the point being that these members bring about no action that is something unobservable.36 Now the opponent submits that the members of a causal aggregate bring about something that is over and above their respective actions and that this something is the operation concerned; Jayanta in essence replies by way of posing a dilemma: if this operation is brought about by these members acting together then each of them must be inactive unless all come together - e.g. in that case fuel should not burn unless it is cooking rice, if this operation is brought about by these members acting singly then it should be brought by each acting singly - e.g. in that case rice should be cooked by burning fuel alone. 37 This reply of Jayanta is based on the consideration that the members of a causal aggregate are said to bring about an operation in the form of something new while he sees there nothing

Page #44

PAMANA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHAVA
35
apart from the respective actions of these members themselves; so when the opponent pleads that fuel burns even taken singly but cooks rice only in the company of other members of the concerned causal aggregate Jayanta retorts that even in their company fuel does nothing save burning, his point being that the result concerned is the new thing that is jointly brought about by the members of a causal aggregate. 38 Then it is the opponent who poses a dilemma : If the result is something already accomplished there is no sense in bringing it about, if it is something to be accomplished then it must be of the form of an operation; Jayanta retorts that the result is something to be accomplished and yet not of the form of an operation (the opponent is however allowed the freedom to define operation as "something to be accomplished' and then call the result an operation in his own technical sense).39 in desperation the opponent asks: “What then constitutes cooking ? Certainly, the verb 'to cook' cannot be meaningless." Jayanta replies that the respective actions of the members of the concerned causal aggregate are themselves "what constitutes cooking but these actions as determined by (= as aimed at) the result concerned (the reply'is buttressed by the consideration that about each of these members it can be said that it is undertaking, cooking).40
Jayanta sums up the above general discussion by examining the specific case of cognition which he considers to be a quality of soul and the Kumarilite an operation undertaken by soul. He begins by emphasising the established position of his school that a soul undertakes to action but just possesses qualities like cognition, pleasure, pain etc.* ? Then an appeal is made to the circumstance that one is often in a position to say "I cognize such and such an object"; his point is that cre cognition is being referred to as something perceived but that since cognition conceived as an operation is something imperceptible on the opponent's own showing cognition here referred to must be a quality rather than operation 4 2 Jayanta knows that the opponent will plead - and not implausibly - that here is a case of an

Page #45

36
INDIAN LOGIO
object being perceived as something cognized, and so he seeks support in another direction. For now he quotes the Mimāṁsā stalwart, Sabara as mentioning cognition and action together, which means that according to the latter cognition is not of the form of action.*8 Now it is not improbable that to view cognition as an operation is a post-Sabara development in the history of Mimāṁsā school; but to view it as something, essentially unobservable seems to be as old as Sabara. So Jayanta lastly directs his attack against this latter position itself. His first argument is that if x is never an object of perception it can also never be an object of inference. 44 But realizing the weakness of such an argument (which should make it impossible for a philo-- sopher to posit anything imperceptible) he next submits that an ‘operation' over and above the respective actions of the members of the concerned causal aggregate is an untenable concept. 5 This is no new submission, as is confessed. So, lastly is examined the argument actually most favourite of the Kumārilite. The argument is that the fact that an object is found to be something cognized remains unaccounted for unless it is posited that the cognition concerned has taken place, this being called cognizing this cognition by way of implication; Jayanta. in essence replies that the fact in question can be accounted for 'even on his supposition about the nature of cognition.4 6 He is correct as we ourselves pointed out when he himself argued that this. fact can be accounted for even on his supposition about the nature of cognition. But the question is which accounting is more tenableJayanta's or the Kumarilite's; and viewed thus it seems a better course that cognition be treated as an operation which results in the object concerned being cognized, a result manifested in the circumstance that the cognizer concerned is in a position to deal with the object concerned more effectivety than before. It is this course which the Kumāriiite in essence recommends and which Jayanta rejects in the name of arguing that the Kumarilite concept of object-cognizedness is untenable. Thus on his showing this concept might mean that the object concerned has been made an object of cognition or that some new property has been pro

Page #46

PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHAVA
37
duced in this cbject; the former alternative is rejected on the ground that in that case object-cognizedness cannot be cognized without cognition itself being cognized, the latter on the ground that in that case object-cognizedness should be a public property.+7 As a matter of fact, object-cognizedness is a property not of the object concerned as such but of it as related to the cognizer concerned; but this alternative is rejected by substituting for the phrase "object-cognizedness' the phrase "object-revealedness' and then arguing that a revealer like lamp must reveal a thing for everybody (the fact that cognition, unlike a lanap, is a subjective type of revealer is just ignored). 4 d
: Towards the end of his present discussion Jayanta briefly criticizes the Prabhākarite Mimāmsaka's position on the question a position which has affinities with the Buddhist, Kumārilite as well as Nyāya positions. Thus the Prabhākarites maintain that pramaņaship belongs to jñāna which is something unobservable and is to be inferred from the result produced by it, a position apparently the same as the Kumarilite position presently under attack from the side of Jayanta. But the two positions are only apparently the same, because the Prabhākarite's word for cognition is ‘samvedana' while his word 'jñāna' means
the operation uudertaken by the causal aggregate that produces - samvedana. So Jayanta's only criticism against the Prabhakarite is that the operation undertaken by the concerned causal aggregate is not something unobservable but he also points out that the words 'jñāna' and 'samvedana' are in fact synonymous.49 Then Page #47

38
INDIAN LOGIC
him that since he does not share the Buddhist view that a cogni-- tion hears the form of its object (for that view ultimately leads to idealism) no purpose of his is served by maintaining that all cognition is self-cognitive. 50 This last lap of Jayanta's argumentation provokes some re-capitulation. Thus the Buddhist, the Kumārilite, the Prabbākarite as well as Jayanta are basing themselves on the consideration that after an object has been cognized the cognizer concerned cannot fail to realize that the cognition concerned has taken place. Nay, they are also virtually agreed as to defining the causal aggregate that goes to produce cognition. But the true position that to cognize a cognition means to rationally understand how the concerned causal ' aggregate produces this cognition finds clearest recognition in the Kumârilite way of looking at things.
Then Jayanta considers an altogether different aspect of the Kumārilite definition of pramáņa. Thus according to this definition the object of pramāņa must be something that was hitherto uncognized, a stipulation which Jayanta finds untenable. 1 Unfortunately, here again the Kumārilite is and. Jayanta is not on the right track. For it is the very nature of cognition that it must take note of some new feature in an object so that what takes note of some old feature in an object is called not cognition but recognition. Somewhat aware of all this Jayanta begins by consi-- dering the question as to what is the use of cognizing something that has already been cognized; his first answer is tbat a cognition should not cease to be cognition simply because it is useless, his second answer is that the repeated cognition of an object enables one to handle this object more effectively. 59 The second answer has an implication that goes against Jayanta's own position for the repeated cognition of an object enables one to handle this object more effectively precisely because on each occasion some new feature of this object comes to light, an objection noted by Jayanta.53 But difficulty arose because of an odd case considered by our logicians. Thus they considered it possible that one might go on cognizing one and the same object (meaning one and the same cbjective feature) for a long time, and Jayanta asks the

Page #48

· PRAMĀNA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHAVA
Kumārilite as to what should be the latter's explanation for that. 54 Jayanta should bave been told that after initial cognition has taken place the case in question becomes a case of recognizing an earlier cognized object. But then the difficulty was that recognition itself was treated by the Kumārilite as a case of pramāna and this difficulty too Jayanta exploits. 55 The Kumārilite suggests that in recognition an earlier cognized object is cognized in a new temporal context, but since that goes without saying the suggestion cuts no ice with Jayanta.5 6 Jayan ta should have been frankly told that recognition is not a case of cognition. But Jastly Jayanta is himself faced with a difficulty. For his school too refused to treat memory as a case of pramāṇa and he had to find an explanation for this refusal. Obviously, he could not argue that memory is no pramāņa because it cognizes an already cognized object; so he argued that remory is ro pramāņa because it is not caused by what constitutes its object. 57 But really speaking, it is only perceptual cognition that is produced by what constitutes its object while an inference, verbal testimony or the like might well have for its object a past or a future thing which can in no way go to produce a cognition. Jayanta does consider two cases where a past feature or a future feature is cognized in an object, but since in both cases the object itself is a present thing he feels that they do noj invalidate his present contention; thus on his showing, on finding a river flooded one might validly infer that its upper reaches bad had rains in past and, similarly, one might validly anticipate that one's brother would come home next day, but since in the first case the river and in the second case one's brother are a present thing both are a case of a cognition being produced by what constitutes its object. 58 Even granting the validity of Jayanta's understanding of his two cases (though the second is of extremely doubtful import) the fact remains that it is not at all necessary for the object of a non-perceptual type of cognition to be something present, which means that Jayanta should find some other explanation for his school's refusal to treat memory as a case of pramāna. The simple fact is that the reason why recognition is not a case of cognition is also (rather all the mo

Page #49

.
..
INDIAN LOGIC
. reason why memory is not a case of cognition, never being a case
of noticing a hitherto uncognized objective feature.
After having thus disposed of the Mimāṁsā definition of pramāna Jayanta once more grapples with an aspect of the Buddhist definition. Thus the Buddhist defines valid cognition as that cognition which receives confirmation in practice, e.g. if a cognition identifies an object as x and if in subsequent practice this object is found to behave as x then this cognition is valid cognition. By way of clarification it is added that a cogoition can be valid cognition even in case relevant practice is not actually undertaken, for the necessary thing is that this cognition should receive confirmation in case such practice is actually undertaken. 6° All this seems sound commonsense and yet Jayanta takes exception to it because he feels that the Buddhist in view of his advocacy of momentarism and all that has no right to say all this. The difficulty is that the Buddhist's case crucially depends on the consideration whether a cogaition identifies its object -rightly or otherwise, but he is also of the view that all identification of an object, being a task performed by thought, is somehow false of this object; and against thought as thus understood is pitted perception - that is, bare sensory experience - which is supposed to reveal an object in all its true particularity. As a result, 'his explanation of how perception and inference, the two types of valid cognition admitted by him, manage to be true of their respective objects is extremely cumbersome; this becomes at once clear from Jayanta's presentation which is fairly trustworthy. According to this explanation what a perception cognizes now is not what is an object of practice later on (for an object is necessarily monentary) but the two belong to the same 'series' which might be identified by thought rightly or otherwise, in the former case this identification being confirmed in subsequent practice; again, what an inference cognizes is not at all something being perceived but something identified by thought, but this identification can be possibly right in case the thing identified stands appropriately related to something that is being perceived.60 Against this explanation, Jayanta's simple objection is that if the identification of an object on the

Page #50

IPRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHAVA
-part of thought is not true of this object then as here conceived an inference is not at all,true of its object while for all practical purposes a perception too is not true of its object. 61 The Buddhist pleads that a distinction be made between a real ultimately speaking and a real practically speaking, so that Jayanta's objection ceases to hold in case the 'series' here spoken of is treated as a real practically speaking even if not a real ultimately speaking; Jayanta dubs this strategem escapist and emphasizes that what thought reveal is something ultimately real, not something just practically real, further adding that if the 'series' posited by the Buddhist is something practically real why not ‘universal' etc. posited by the Nyāya philosophy.89 There is much point in what Jayanta says and yet the fact remains that the Buddhist's declaration that a perception is all true of its object while a thought is all false of it is a highly technical proposition; thus for all practical purposes a perception as here conceived is neither true nor false of its object in the ordinary sense while a thought as here conceived is true or false of its object in the ordinary sense. And then there is nothing seriously objectionable about the Buddhist contention that if the identification of its object on th: pirt of a cognition is right this cognition is valid, otherwise not.
Incidentally, Jayanta here raises a relatively minor point which however leads to an important discussion. Thus the Buddhist has spoken of a cognition receiving confirmation in subsequent practice, Now Jayanta objects that the question of practice arises only in case the object concerned happens to be favourable or unfavourable but not at all in case it happens to be neutral; the suggestion that the categeory 'neutral' be included under the category 'unfavourable' is rejected as being akin to the suggestion that the category 'neuter' be included under the category 'female' (or under the category 'male'). 63 The Buddhist pleads that Jayanta's present objection is not important inasmuch as a cognition can well be valid or otherwise even in case relevant practice is not actually undertaken (an old point); Jayanta understands it to mean that a cognition is valid without requiring to

Page #51

INDIAN LOGIC
be tested in practice (something like the Mimāṁsā thesis that all cognition is valid), and this gives rise to a controversy.6 4. For the Buddhist now makes the important distinction that thought arising in the wake of perception and identifying the object concerned might be true, false or just absent; e.g. when a blue particular object is perceived it is perceived in all its particularity and yet when the subsequently arising thought identifies this object as somethig blue it is true thought, when it identifies this object as something static (= non-momentary) it is false thought, while nonidentification of this object as something momentary is a case of absence-of-thought. 60 The Buddhist's reference to a fundamental metaphysical point reminds Jayanta. of another fundamental metaphysical point, for he says : "But then the identification of several momentary objects as a 'series' must be equally a case of false thought, just like the identification of mirage-sands as water”; Jayanta's implication is that the question of identification arises only in the case of a 'Series' pot in the case of a momentary object, so that if a “series' is something unreal all thought whatsoever must be false. 6 Jayanta closes the present discussion by emphasizing that a definition of prarrāna should make no reference to practice which after all depends on the will of the cognizer concerned; thus on his showing this definition should only say that pramāna stands for such and such a type of apprehension-of-an-object (as is the case with Jayanta's own definition.)? However, Jayanta's own account of the Nyāya Vs Mimāṁsa controvercy on whether the validity of cognition is intrinsic or extrinsic will make it clear that according to bis Nyāya school too it is a very important consideration that a valid cognition is and an in valid cognition is not confirmed in practice,
Lastly, Jayanta makes a few critical remarks against the Sānkhya definition of pramaņa, in this connection promising that a refutation of the whole Sankhya metaphysics will be undertaken at a future occasion.68 The promise is necessary because barring an exception or two Jayata nowhere takes a serious pote of the Sānkhya position on a question of logic. Be that as it may, on the Sānkhya view a sense-organ urdergoes transforp ation-bearing -

Page #52

PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHAVA
43
the-shape-of-the-object-concerned and in its wake the buddhi undergoes a corresponding transformation while the buddhi thus undergoing a transformation colours the purusa; here the buddhi as thus undergoing a transformation is pramāna, the purusa as thus coloured is pramātr. 69 Jayanta's difficulty with this whole theory is that here the entire cognitive operation of the form of pramāna is attributed to the buddhi which is something unconscious while the purusa (which is something conscious) is declared to be the pramatr even if it has nothing to do with the cognitive operation in question.70 The suggestion that for some reason or other the buddhi and the purusa share each other's characteristic features is rejected on the ground that such sharing must be something illusory and so can constitute no real explanation of any sort.?! Lastly, it is pointed out that the thesis on the buddhi undergoing transformation-bearing-the-shape-of-the-object-concerned is akin to the Buddhist thesis on 'formed' cognition and is open to similar difficulties; (as a matter of fact, this Sankhya thesis is too crude to bear comparison with that highly refined Buddhist thesis).72
(2) On the Buddhist Twofold Classification of Pramāņa
After dealing with the problem of defining pramāņa Jayanta proceeds to defend the Nyaya position that there are just four pramāṇas-viz, perception, inference, apalogy and verbal testimony. This he does by way of criticizing the Buddhist position that there are just two pramānas-viz. perception and inference, the Kumārilite-cum-Prabhakarite position that arthāpatti is an additional pamāna, the Kumārilite position that abhāva is a further additional pramāņa. He begins with the Buddhist position in question. Now this Buddhist position is important not so much because it rejects verbal testimony, analogy etc. as additional pramānas as because it conceives the nature of perception and hence of inference in a radically novel fashion. Thus according to the Buddhist, perception is the type of cognition that involves no element of thought whatsoever; and since his word for thought is kalpana or vikalpa the idea was technically explained by saying that pratyaksa is the type of cognition that is kalpana

Page #53

.
.
.
INDIAN LOGIC
podha or nirvikalpaka (both meaning devoid of thought), Under the impetus of this Buddhist idea the Nyāya and Mimāṁsā authors too began to posit a sub-type of perception called nirvikalpaka pratyaksa but in their logic this remained a virtually -foreign concept precisely because they had inothing corresponding to the full-fledged Buddhist thesis on kalpanā; (as a matter of fact, these authors found this Buddhist thesis to be so absurd that they felt no need for formulating a rival 'thesis of their own). The Buddhist thesis doubtless had its shortcomings but it was rooted in the recognition of a vital logical distinction. For cognition essentially consists in determining the nature of its object and this precisely was how the Buddhist defined thought; but there arose the question as to what is perception. Paradoxically, the vague realization that perception is not a cognitive process led the Buddhist to maintain that perception is a cognitive process - par excellence. Thus on his showing perception results when a physical object acts on a 'sense-organ and produces sensory experience; but instead of admitting that perception as thus understood is a physiological rather than cognitive (= mental) process he declared it to be a distict type of cognitive process in addition to thought. And then various attempts were made to distinguish perception from thought; for example, sometimes it was emphasized that the former grasps its object fully, the latter partly; sometimes that the former grasps a particular, the latter a classcharacter; sometimes that the former grasps a particular that is something real, the latter a class-character that is something unreal. All these attempts were more or less misguided but it is they that loom large in the Buddhist's controversy with his rivals on this question, so much so that the fact that he had hit upon the vital logical distinction that obtains between the physiological process called sensory experience on the one hand and the mental process called thought (= cognition) on the other virtually got lost sight of. Jayanta's present polemic against the Buddhist is no exception to the rule. This polemic is preceded by a fairly detailed presentation of the Buddhist's case and here except towards the end the whole emphasis is on the idea that perception and

Page #54

PRAMANA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHAVA
45
thought have got two destinct types of object to deal with. Let us see how.
The Buddhist begins by arguing that there are just two types of pramāņa because there are just two types of object-to-becognized, his point being that corresponding to a type of pramāņa there must be a type of object-to-be-cognized. That the objectsto-be-cognized are of just two types is sought to be prove through a dichotomy alleged to be established on the basis of perception itself; thus it is contended that an object-to-becognized must be either something sense-cognized or something not-sense-cognized, either something of the form of a unique particular or of the form of a class-character, it being further claimed that both these dichotomies are revealed in perception (just like the dichotomy that an object must be either blue or not-blue). The idea is that when a colour-patch is perceived as blue it is also realized that it is not something not-blue and that there can be nothing that is neither blue nor not-blue; similarly, when a thing is perceived as something sense-cognized (or something, of the form of a unique particular) it is also realized that it is not something not-sense-cognized (or something of the form of a class-cbaracter) and that there can be pothing that is neither some-- thjpg sebst-cognized nor something not-sense-cognized (or neither something of the form of a unique particular nor something of the form of a class-character).: The difficulty with this sort of argument is that on the Buddhist's own showing an object is identified as belonging to a class. not through perception but through thought so much so that even to identify a colour-patch as blue is an act of thought rather than perception. Hence it is added that the identification in question is made not by perception itself but by thougbt arising in the wake of perception. However. even then the understanding remains that this identification is made by perception (for that is the whole point of the present argumentation); so it is next added that when perception has shown that the objects-to-be-cognized are of just two types, inference too lends support to the same basing itself on the consideration that what is x cannot be not-x and that nothing can be neither x nor

Page #55

INDIAN LOGIC
not-x.: Really speaking, the Buddhist has not proved that the objects-to-be-cognized are of just two types, what he has proved is that if they are of just two types and if one of the types is x then the other must be non-x; (that the latter proof is virtually useless is demonstrated through the consideration that it remains -valid whatever be the value of x). So he considers the objection that nothing prevents the types in question from being more than two; his reply amounts to saying that when x is cognized it is automatically realized that not-x is its opposite (e.g. existent and not-existent, eternal and not-eternal, successive and not-successive are each a couple of mutually opposite properties). But the question is what is x supposed to be the type of object cognized through perception and why should not-x be cognized through just one pramāna inference; this question is answered by dogmatically asserting that the object which is something sense-cognized and something of the form of a unique particular is cognized through perception, the object which is something not-sense-cognized and something of the form of a class-character is cognized through inference, it being further added that verbal testimony etc. cannot cognize what is already cognized through inference just as inference cannot cognize what is already.cognized through perception."
We are not yet told why perception' must have for its object a unique particular and inference a class-character. This question is answered by submitting that a unique particular stands unrelated to everything else and so cannot be grasped by inference which must be based on a relation of invariable concomitance, while, on the other hand, perception must grasp a unique particular because as it is bound to have to do with things real it cannot have anything to do with the class-characters which are a false imposition of thoughts. Thus we are told that unique particulars which alone are things real are grasped by perception alone while class-characters in terms of which an inference is conducted are falsely imposed by thought on things real. Thus is obscured the correct postion that a particular thing as really possessed of these and those class-characters produces sensory experience (= perception) and is truly cognized by thought in

Page #56

PRAMANA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHAVA
general and inference in partcular, both possibly arising in the wake of senory experience. Certainly, the Buddhist rightly notes that sensory experience and thought are two fundamentally distinct types of processes, but instead of realizing that the former is a physiological process, the latter a cognitive (= mental) process he views them as two types of cognitive processes, the former having for its object unique particulars supposed to be something real, the latter class-characters supposed to be something unreal. Be that as it may, the Buddhst closes the present presentation of his case by emphasizing that sensory experience and thought are two fundamentally distinct types of processes. First is cited an analogy where the latter is compared to the light emitted by stars and the moon, the former to that emitted by the sun.' Then it is pointed out that one lacking a sense-organ cannot have the corresponding sensory experience related to an object but he can well have verbal knowledge (= thought type of cognition) about this object. 10 Lastly comes the contention that burning experienced through the torch of fire is one thing, burning learnt of through the word 'burning' is an altogether different thing. 11 All this should leave one in no doubt that perception as understood by the Buddhist is the process of bare sensory experience, the implication being that all that deserves to be called 'cognition' comes under what he calls 'thought'. Jayanta, however, attacks the Buddhist position from his own angle; to that we trun next.
Jayanta begins by taking exception to the Buddhist's contention that perception itself decides that there are two types of cognition with their respective types of object-to-be-cognized, He pertinently remarks that such a decision should in no case be possible on the part of perception as conceived by the Buddhist, a perception devoid of all thought; to this is added that the decision in question should be possible neither on the part of thought which on the Buddhist's showing has nothing to do with things real.12 Jayanta further concludes that simple perception might decide whether a thing is blue or not-blue but that it cannot decide whether it is sense-cognized or not-sense-cognized.13 In this connection he rejects two alternatives and as follows :

Page #57

INDIAN LOGIC
(1) The alternative that perception reveals that a senseorgan has been employed with a view to cognizing an object is. rejected on the ground that such a revelation is the task not of the perception itself but of a subsequent inference.
(2) The alternative that perception reveals ihat an object has been cognized through the perceptual type of cognition is rejected on the ground that a cognition while cognizing its object. does not cognize itself as well.14.
The consideration of the second alternative leads to an independent examination of the famous Buddhist position that all cognition of an object presupposes self-cognition on the part. of this cognition. Jayanta's central point is ihat at the time of cognizing an object one does not have the feeling that one is having two cognitions - a cognition of the object concerned and a cognition of this cognition itself. 15 The alternative that this cognition is cognized by a subsequent cognition is reject the ground that that will lead to an infinite regress; ihe alternative that this cognition cognizes itself (an alternative actually adopted by the Buddhist) is rejected on the ground that nothing that is cognized cognizes itself just as a physical object does not cognize itself.16 Then is considered a point of fundamental importance.17 Thus the Buddhist has argued that all mental state, unless it is cognized and cognized by itself, is as good as not arisen. Jayanta on his part distinguishes between cognition on the one hand and the remaining mental states like pleasure, pain etc, on the other and argues that the essence of the latter lies in that they are enjoyed and in order to be enjoyed they must be perceived; however, according to him even they are not perceived by themselves but by a subsequent cognition. On the other hand, on Jayanta's showing the essence of a cognition lies in apprehe nding its object and this essence remains unimpaired even if this cognition remains uncognized; however, unlike the Kumärilite Mimāmsaka, the concedes that a cognition might be perceived by a subsequent cogniton just as pleasure, pain etc. are. (That pleasure, pain etc. are perceived by a subsequent cognition is conceded even by the Kumärilite. We have not yet considered the question

Page #58

PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
as to how pleasure, pain etc. are enjoyed but we have already opined that the Kumarilite position that a cognition is cognized by a subsequent cognition not by way of perception but by way of implication (or even inference) makes better sense than Jayanta's present position. After thus rejecting what the Buddhist calls the perceptual evidence for a twofold division of objects-tobe-cognized, Jayanta off-hand dismisses the inferential evidence that follows; for he rightly notes that the latter offers nothing new18. Lastly, Jayanta argues that even if the objects-to-be-cog. nized are of two types it is not necessary that each type must be exclusively cognized through just one type of pramāņa; he is thus preparing the ground for his owa position that there are all sorts of objects-to-be-cognized and all sorts of pramānas to cognize them, a position which has its own difficulties 19.
The point raised last of all · Jayanta reopens in a somewhat new context. Thus the Buddhist bas'argued that what constitutes an object of perception cannot also constitute an object of inference; Jayanta retort that all inference requires the establishment of a relation of invariable concomitance between the probans and the probandum and unless that is done with the help of perception an infinite regress must be tire result, his point being that logic demands that the probans and the probandum must be a possible object of perception as well as inference. 20 The Buddhist virtually concedes Jayanta's point by attributing the epithet 'perception - like to the thought that arises in the wake of perception and identifies as belonging to this class or that the object that was earlier perceived (in brief, post-perceptual thought); thus instead of saying, as Jayanta would, that the probans and the probandum must at some time be made an object of perception, the Buddhist says that they must at some time be made an object of post-perceptual thought (which is something perception-like.)?1 However, the real difficulty lies not with the Buddhist's nomenclature but with his understanding that all thought is somehow false of things real, a difficulty which Jayanta exploits to the full. Thus the Buddhist was bound to say that even a true post

Page #59

50
INDIAN LOGIC
perceptual thought and a valid relation of invariable concomitance established with its help are somehow false of things real, they being likened to a person mistaking a jewel's rays for a jewel inasmuch as this person will get at a jewel in case he proceeds to get at what he mistakenly considers to be a jewel. 29 Jayanta's simple point is that if a relation of invariable concomitance obtains between things real and is established with the help of postperceptual thought then this thought must be competent to deal with things real. 93 To this is added that if perception and thought are so unlike each other as the Buddhist makes out then no thought can possibly be perception-like.7 4 Jayanta concludes by posing before the Buddhist a. dilemma: either the post-perceptual thought that establishes the relation of invariable concomitance is pramāna or inference is no pramāna; the confession that inference is actually somehow false of things real is rejected on the ground that in that case the Buddhist should not insist that the relation of invariable concomitance obtains between things real. 25 As a matter of fact, the Buddhist's insistence that all thought is false of things real is as much half-hearted as his insistence that inference is (and post-perceptual thought is not) a type of pramāņa. Be that as it may, Jayanta next points out that perception of the probans as seated in the locus-of-inference so necessary for all inference, is equally impossible on the Buddhist's presupposition; his point is that this perception cannot be the perception of a unique particular but of a particular possessed of an appropriate class-character.7. Here too the Buddhist will seek to substitute 'perception-like post-perceptual thought for Jayanta's 'perception', and here too he will receive from the latter the same old retort. Clinching his point Jayanta says that the possibility that the same thing is cognized through perception as well as inference cannot be denied without denying the possibility of inference itself.57 Really, in order to vindicate the possibitity of inference the Buddhist only requires that the same thing is cognized through post-perceptual thought as well as inference, a requirement his theory well fulfills. On the other hand, his contention that it is not possible for the same thing to be cognized through perception as well as thought is a highly

Page #60

"PRAMĀNA ARTHẬPATTI AND ABHAVA
misleading way of saying that perception and thought are two incommensurate processes inasmuch as the former is a physiological process, the latter a mental process. This should become 'further cvident from 2 perusal of certain things Jayanta says while .concluding the topic.
The Buddhist maintains that a unique particular to be exclusively grasped through perception is something necessarily sensecognized, a class-character to be exclusively grasped through thought is something necessarily non-sense-cognized. As a matter of fact. a class-character is not something over and above the concerned particular objects but merely a behaviour-pattern of these objects. But Jayanta subscribes to an ontology according to which particular substances are one type of reals, “universals' another type, qualities a third typ-, action a fourth type, and so on and so forth. Hence he argues that even if there are two types of objects-to-be-cognized it should be possible for both to be an object of perception as well as inference inasmuch as the thing might be sense-cognized under one condition, not-sensecognized under another condition. Then he recalls that according to the Buddhist the thing that is perceived now and the co. rresponding thing that is made an object of parctice later on are not the same thing but two things belonging to the same 'series, this meaning that despite the Buddhist's insistence to the contrary these two things are an object of perception as well as thought ('series' being an object of thought). 29 Jayanta suspects that the Buddhist draws a sharp contrast between perception and thought with a view to dismissing as something thought-cognized and hence something unreal the Nyāya categories like 'universal etc: he considers this endeavour futile inasmuch as according to him
ategories are well established.. Again, Jayanta finds ungrounded the Buddhist's fear that to cognize the same thing through two types of cognition should be futile or self-contradictory: for according to him it is well possible to cognize something that has already been cognized, it being further pointed out that two tune of cognition cognizes a thing in two different manners.31 Lastly Javanta repudiates the Buddhist's argument that perception and

Page #61

INDIAN LOGIC
thought deal with two different types of object because the per. ception-type of cognition is so different from the thought-type: of cognition. In this connection two replies are offered. Thus according to one, the same thing can be cognized differently when the means of cognition are different; according to the other, different means of cognition cognize different aspects of one and the same thing. [Jayanta promises to examine these two views. later on, and presently only remarks that even the second view stands opposed to the Buddhist position under consideration.]37 The fact of the matter is that the Buddhist has landed himself in unnecessary troubles by talking as if perception and thought are two types of cognition (the former dealing with one type of objects the latter dealing with another type of them); for as conceived by him perception is not at all a type of cognition but bare sensory experience while thought is the only type of cognition, both having to do with the only type of things there are, viz. the particular things possessed of these or those class-characters. For the rest, the Buddhist has correctly distinguished two elements in the knowledge situation viz. bare sensory experience and thought. Again, he has correctly realized that thought essentially consists. in bringing a particular thing under an appropriate class, also that thought might be aimed either at identifying a present object (and then called post-perceptual* thought) or at inferring an absent object (and then called inference). Of all these important aspects of the problem so neatly brought to light by the Buddhist the Nyāya authors have very inadequate realization. This. should gradually become evident as we go through Jayanta's treat. ment of the various types of pramāna posited by his school; but one thing can be noted even now. Thus we have found Jayanta saying that the causal aggregate which produces valid cognition (and which according to him is what constitutes pra. māņa) includes physical as well as mental factors. In terms of the Buddhist theory the physical factors in question ought to be the factors that go to produce sensory experience-i. e. factors such as a sense-organ, a physical object-to-be-cognized, a set of acc. esosries like light etc-while the mental factors in question ought

Page #62

PRAMANA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHAVA
to be the concerned cognizer's past stock of knowledge and its proper employment so as to enable thought to determine the nature of the object-to-be-cognized. But Jayanta's own list of these factors makes a curious reading; thus here the physical factors are a word, a probans, a lamp, a sense-organ, the mental factors knowledgeof-the-qualities, knowledge of probans, perception of similarity, hearing of words. Obviously, Jayanta has in mind his school's position that there are four types of pramāņa, viz. perception, inference, analogy, verbal testimony, and he has to point out as to what can possibly be a physical factor and what a mental factor in the case of each type. But this theory of fourfold pramāna obscures the important point that in all knowledge situation two necessary
elements are sense-experience and thought (both to be essentially conceived after the Buddhist fashion), this obscuration remaining there even after a subtype of perception 'called nirvikalpaka-pratyaksa has been posited in imitation of the Buddhist. Some idea of all this can be formed from Jayanta's consideration of his last point. For quoting Vātsyayana he enumerates three cases where just one pramāṇa is properly applicable and a case where three pramāņas are properly applicable, thus seeking to refute the Buddhist's contention that not more than one pramāṇa can cognize one and the same thing. The three pramāṇas in question are perception, inference, verbal testimony and we are told that one's knowledge of one's own two hands can be had through perception
alone, the knowledge of what has caused a cloud-thunder that is heard can be had through inference alone, the knowledge that the performance of - Agnihotra sacrifice leads to heaven can be had through verbal testimony alone, the knowledge that there is fire on the yonder mountain can be had through perception, inference as well as verbal testimony.33 Fortunately, Vātsyāyana is silent about analogy which is the fourth type of pramāṇa posited by his school, but as a matter of fact even verbal testimony, in order to be a source of valid cognition, must be treated as a case of inference, So the real question is as to when perception is to be had and when inference; and the answer is that a thing that is something present (i. e. something in contact with a sense-organ) is to be

Page #63

54
INDIAN LOGIC
cognized through perception not through inference while in the case of a thing that is something absent (i. e. something not in contact with a sense-organ) the opposite is to happen. It is this consideration that makes Vätsyāyana's case of exclusive-perception and his case of exclusive-inference the cases as claimed by him, but this very consideration should convince him that the case when fire on the yonder mountain is cognized through perception is a case of exclusive-perception, when it is cognized through inference is a case of exclusive-inference. All this is made crystal-clear in the Buddhist theory of thought, where, however, the desigaation. 'post-perceptual thought is given to the process Vātsyāyana is here calling 'perception.'
arthāpatti
Jayanta next undertakes a criticism, of the Mināmsā position that arthāpatti is an additional pramāņa. The criticism is not of a fundamental importance simply because the position in question is not a fundamental position of Mimāṁsā logic. And it stands. criticized at so early a stage for the simple reason that Jayanta is here settling account with his rivals who would posit either a lesser or greater number of pramānas than his school while arthāpatti is a pramāna which the Mimāṁsā school posits and his
chool does not. Even so, the present discussion is not altogether devoid of importance, for in the course of it certain significant aspects of the problem of inference are brought to light. The fact was that for our logicians the model of inference was one where the concerned relation of invariable concomitance is established on the basis of a frequent observation of instances where the probans and the probandum are present together, there being observed no instance where the probans is present while the probandum absent. But there occur cases-of-inference where the concerned relation of invariable concomitance is established in virtue of some logical principle and it was somewhat unnatural to seek. to understand these cases after the standard model. One imp group of cases covered by the Mimamsaka's arthāpatti were some

Page #64

PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHAVA
'557
cases of this sort, and the Nyāya authors criticized him on the ground that these were but ordinary cases of inference. Obviously, both the parties were partly right and partly wrong, for the cases in question were certainly cases of inference but no ordinary cases of inference. Again, the Mimāṁsaka's arthāpatti covered another group of cases-of-inference where the probandum was inherently imperceptible, so that there was no question of establishing on the basis of observation a relation of invariable concomitance between the probans and the probandum. Even the Nyāya authors realized that these cases-of-inference were not provided for by their standard model, but they treated them as an extraordinary type of cases where the concerned relation of invariable concomitance was established after the analogy of an observation-based such relation; the Mimāmsakas themselves did not in principle reject this sort of explanation but they would treat as cases of arthāpatti rather than inference those of such cases where this sort of explanation sounded inconvenient (often indiscriminately treating a case as either a case of arthāpatti or a case of inference). In the light of these preliminary remarks we can follow Jayanta's polemic against the Mîmāṁsaka where he first elaborately presents iho Kumārilite case and then criticizes it (incidentally also taking critical note of certain Prabbākarite positions.) .
The Kumārilite begins by submitting that a case of arthapa. tti arises when a piece of knowledge had through any of the six pramāņas (posited by his school) remains unaccounted for unless another piece of knowledge is posited, this new piece of knowledge being one had through the pramāņa called arthāpatti.' As here illustrated the six subtypes are to be divided into three groups as follows: (1) In the case of the first four sub-types a 'capacity' is posited by way of accounting for something that is cog. nized through perception, inference, analogy or arthāpatti itself. For example, the perceptual cognition of fire as hot remains unacco. unted for unless the 'capacity' to produce hot touch is posited in fire. the inferential cognition of the sun as moving from place to place remains unaccounted for unless the 'capacity' to undertake

Page #65

56
INDIAN LOGIC
motion is posited in the sun, and so on and so forth, the point being that a cause cannot produce the effect concerned unless it possesses the 'capacity to produce this effect; (that a capacity' thus posited is not open to perception is understood but from this very understanding it follows that it is not open to inference either, an inference always requiring an invariable concomitance established on the basis of perception).' (2). The fifth sub-type is illustrated by the case where the knowledge that a certain person (named Caitra, say) is alive and yet absent inside his house remains unaccounted for unless it is posited that he is present somewhere outside his house; (this is a case where a piece of knowledge had through the pramāna called "abhava (=absence)' remains unaccounted for unless another piece of knowledge is posited.)3 (3) The sixth sub-type is illustrated by the case where the heard sentence 'fat Devadatta does not eat during day time' necessitates the positing of the sentence Devadatta eats during night-time'; (this is a case where a piece of knowledge had through verbal testimony remains unaccounted for unless another piece of knowledge is posited).* Of these three groups the first is essentially described by what has been just said about it, but the remaining two are further elaborated at considerable length. They might be taken up one by one. Thus it is argued in various ways that the knowledge that Caitra is alive and yet absent inside his house necessitating the knowledge that he is present somewhere outside his house is not a case of inference. First it is contended that in this case it is impossible to point out as to what can be the locus-of-inference. what the probans, what the probandum (various alternatives are considered and rejected)." As a matter of fact, the difficulty thus urged is flimsy; for one can eassily infer: *x is present somewhere outside his house, because x is alive and yet absent inside his house.' The real difficulty is that here the concerned relation of invariable concomitance is not an ordinary one, that is, not one based on observation but one based on logical principle, and when the Mimāmsaka comes to that point he actually says that he is ready to treat the present case as a case of inference provided it is conceded that the concerned

Page #66

PRAMANA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHAVA
I elation of invariable concomitance is established through arth
āpatti. Then it is argued that the present case is not a case of inference because here the very knowledge of the alleged probans jncludes the knowledge of the alleged probandum, something that never happens in a genuine case of inference; the argument runs as follows : In this case it is necessary to know that Caitra is alive (for otherwise the suggested new knowledge will not follow). But to know that Caitra is alive is to know that he exists somewhere. And when to this knowledge is added the futher knowledge that Caitra does not exist inside his house the knowledge is
inevitable that he exists outside his house. This is something that does not happen in a genuine case of inference; e. g. the knowledge that the mountain possesses smoke does not make inevitable the knowledge that the mountain possesses fire.'? The Mimāmsaka is thus confusingly giving utterance to the true position that the knowledge that x is alive and yet absent-inside-his-house leads to the knowledge that x is present somewhere outside his house in virtue of a logical principle, not in virtue of a relation of invariable concomitance established on the basis of observation; (the logical principle in question is that when a situation can obtain in just three ways then the knowledge that it does not obtain in two ways implies that it obtains in the third way; e. g. the knowledge 'x must be either dead or present inside his house or present outside his house' coupled with the knowledge *x is neither dead nor present inside his house' implies the knowledge 'x is present outside his house'). The confusion contains in the Mımām'saka's further argumentation. Thus it is submitted that t he essence of arthāpatti lies in reconciling two mutually contradictory pieces of knowledge; e. g. the knowledge that Caitra is alive and the knowledge that Caitra is not present inside his house are mutually contradictory and are reconciled by arthāpatti through positing the knowledge that Caitra is present somewhere outside his house.' And here comes that earlier quoted contention that the present case might well become a case of inference provided it is conceded that here the concerned relation of invariable concomitance is established through arthāpatti. Then is

Page #67

58
INDIAN LOGIC
advanced a curious argument in order to prove that this relation is not established on the basis of observation. The Mimāṁsaka was expected to consider the invariable concomitance : “whenever x is absent inside his house x is present outside his house”, but he actually considers the reverse invariable concomitance : “whenever x is present inside his house x is absent outside his house.” For he was out to prove that there is not a single instance where the probans and the probandum are found to be present together, something he hoped to do in the case of the former concomitance but not in the case of the latter. Thus he argues that one must be an omniscient to observe together x's presence inside his house and x's absence everywhere else; (on the other hand, in case x is. standing just outside his door one can observe together. x's absence inside his house and x's presence somewhere else). In this connection too it is pointed out that the present case is unlike that of inferring fire from smhoe, it being easily possible to come across instances when smoke and fire are present together. The opponent pleads : "Having observed a place lying near the place where Caitra is present and having observed that Caitra is absent at the former place one can conclude that Caitra is likewise absent at every other place"; the Kumarilite retorts : "About every place other than the former place you cannot say that Caitra is absent there, for the place where Caitra is present is also a place other than the former place.” 10 The whole performance seems sofrivolous hut is a good specimen of how our logicians were handicas ped owing to their failure to distinguish between an invariable concomitance established on the basis of observation and one established on the basis of logical (=conceptual) analysis. Thus the Mimāṁsaka refuses to concede that the present case is a case of inference because he rightly feels that the concerned invariable concomitance is not established on the basis of observation; on the other hand, Jayanta will endeavour to prove that this invariable concomitance is established on the basis of observation because he rightly feels that the present case is a case of inference. In both cases the conclusion is invalid, the premises valid.
Lastly,, the Kumārilite elaborates his. -sixth sub-type of arthāpatti illustrated by the case when the heard sentence 'fat

Page #68

PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
Devadatta does not eat during daytime necessitates the positing of the sentence Devadatta eats during night-time.' Despite the fanfare accompanying this elaboration the concept in question is of extremely doubtful validity and is theologically motivated. Thus the Kumārilite is not arguing that the knowledge had through hearing the former sentence necessitates the knowledge had through hearing the latter sentence; for then the present case will be logically similar to the one just considered, so that one can submit that the knowledge 'x must be either lean and thin or eat during day-time or eat during night-time' compled with the knowledge 'x is neither lean and thin noi eats during day-time': implies the knowledge 'x eats during night-time'. What he is arguing is that on hearing the former sentence one must posit the latter sentence if one is to have the knowledge had through the latter sentence. So he first submits that the new knowledge had here is not a case of perception, inference or the like but a case of verbal tesimony.11 To this is added that this knowledge is not the meaing of the heard sentence itself, the point being that the corresponding sentence must be got from somewhere. 1 2 Lastly, it is contended that this new sentence cannot be got through perception or inference, obviously not through perception but not through inference either because nothing can act as probans for thit (various suggested alternatives being rejected.)13 The conclusion is that this new sentence is got by way of arthāpatti, with the heard sentence acting as the starting point.16 It is at this stage that the suggestion is rejected that here the knowledge had through the heard sentence necessitates the knowledge had through the implied sentence, the ground of rejection being that the knowledge had through a sentence cannot be true unless the corresponding sentence is there. 15 The point is buttressed by arguing that a situation of the type under coasideration often arises while interpreting a Vedic sentence which, being incomplete, necessitates supplementation but that this supplementation will cease to be something Vedic in case wbat is newly posited is not a sentence but merely its meaning. 16 Really, it is impossible to make head: or tail of this whole piece of argumentation. Implicational relattion holds between one piece of knowledge and another where it

Page #69

INDIAN LOGIC
is immaterial as to how the former piece of knowledge is got. But the Kumarilite speaks as if the case where this piece of knowledge is got through a heard sentence is of a radically distinct sort inasmuch as here the implied piece of knowledge cannot be had unless the corresponding sentence is also there before the mind's eye, a requirement that makes no sense. The Kumārilite felt that on his explanation the implication of a Vedic s tence proves to be a sentence and hence something Vedic; it is difficult to see how. For a Vedic sentence must be a sentence actually occurring in Vedas and this description does not apply to the sentence alleged to be implied by a Vedic sentence. There is, however, no doubt that the present consideration must have been uppermost in the mind of the Kumārilite when he propounded his thesis under examination. For taking his stand on it he could boast to his rivals : "On our explanation even such sentences as do not actually occur in Vedas be proved Vedic sentences.” Be that as it may, here closes Jayanta's presentation of the Kumärilite case on the question of arthapatti, and now begins his refutation of it,
Jayanta begins by submitting that arthāpatti is nothing different from inference inasmuch as knowlege of x cannot lead to knowledge of y unless there obtains between x and y a relation of invariable concomitance. 17 To this is added that here this relation of invariable concomitance must itself. be known first, this is why a newborn babe is in no position to make use of this relation.18 Then it is emphasized that even when a relation of invariable concomitance is not established between x and my as such it must be established between X and Y which are such that x is a sub-class of X and ya corresponding subclass of Y.I. Lastly it is argued that to say that x remains unaccounted for unless y is posited is to say that a concomitance-in-absence obtains between x and y so that wherever yy is absent x is absent, a concomitance which necessitates a concomitance-in-presence to the effect that wherever x is present y is present. After those preliminary observations Jayanta specially criticizes those six subtypes of arthapatti as divided into three groups.

Page #70

PRAMÂNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
The first group comprising the four subtypes where a 'capacity' is posited are on the whole criticized not on the basis of some logical consideration but on the ontological consideration that the concept of 'capacity' is untenable.21 Jayanta's basic contention is that an effect is produced by a cause accompanied by the appropriate accessories but not possessed of a socalled 'capacity' supposed to be something supersensuous. » The Mimāṁsaka argues that a capacity' is to be posited for the following reasons :
(1) Otherwise, any thing might produce any thing inasmuch as all things are similar qua a substance;
(2) While under the influence of a spell a thing apparently remaining the same and remaining accompanied by the appropriate accessories fails to produce the effect concerned, and this happens because this thing is now deprived of the capacity' concerned;
(3) When the same act on the part of a person happens to produce different results in the case of different persons the. Nyaya authors too posiț a supersensuous causal factor in the form of dharma (= spiritual merit accumulated owing to past acts) etc., and a 'capacity’ has to be posited analogically.2 3
In reply to all this Jayanta first argues that the determination as to what cause accompanied by what accessories produce what effect is made on the basis of an observation of concomitancein-presence and concomitance-in-absence, there being nothing incongruous about these accessories including a supersensuous factor like dharma etc, but there being no need to posit 'capacity' as such a factor. * As to why under the influence of a spell a cause even when accompanied by the appropriate accessories fails to produce the effect concerned, the reason suggested is that the accessories are now no more appropriate accessories, for in order to be appropriate they must include a special factor in the form of absence of an obstructing factor like spell etc,',5 to this is added that the same ought to be the Mimamsaka's explanation of the inhibiting activity of a spell or

Page #71

62
INDIAN LOGIC
the like even if according to him a causal aggregate includes an additional factor in the form of 'capacity', the point being that the positing of 'capacity' is superfluous. 26 Then Jayanta argues that the alleged 'capacity' cannot be something eternal because that would mean that the cause concerned always goes on producing the eftect concerned; but that it can also not be something transient because then it will itself require a cause and that will lead to an infinite regress. 27
The Mimāṁsaka pleads : "A capacity' has to be posited because that is unavoidable, and then it has to be conceived in such a manner that an infinite regress is avoided." 23 Jayanta retorts: "To posit a 'capacity' is not unavoidable, it rather is an unnecessary duplication.”';29 Lastly, Jayanta recalls the Mimāmsaka's position that a cause produces the effect concerned by way of undertaking an operation that is something essentially unobservable, and so he asks : “Why posit an unobservable 'capacity' and an, unobservable 'operation' when either should do ?!30; when the Mimāmsaka pleads that even when possessed of a "capacity' a cause is never found to produce the effect concerned unless it undertakes an 'operation' Jayanta retorts : "But that means that an operation' is not something essentially unobservable":31. After this much refutation of the concept of 'capacity' based on an ontological consideration there comes a summary criticism based on a logical consideration; thus it is suggested that even if it becomes necessary to posit a 'capacity' in the form of an additional member of the normal causal aggregate this positing can well be treated as an ordinary case of inference.37 The difficulty with this suggestion was that our logicians allowed for a case of inference 'where the concerned relation of invariable concomitance was established on -the basis of a direct observation as also for a case of inference when it was established on the basis of an analogous observation, but the case of inferring a 'capacity' was a rather third type of case-something like the modern scientific method of formulating a hypothesis by way of accounting for an observed phenomenon. it was this consideration that constituted the strong point of the Mimāmsaka who would plausibly make out that the case of

Page #72

PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
inferring a capacity was not an ordinary case of inference and so not at all a case of inference but a case of arthāpatti. But Jayanta had his own point when he meant that to posit an unobservable member in a causal aggregate is a case of inferring an unobservable cause - that is, a case of inferring something on the analogy of observable causes,
Jayanta next considers the case when Caitra's absence inside his house necessitates the positing of Caitra's presence outside his house. The Mimāṁsaka has argued that this cannot be a case of inference because here it is impossible to point out as to what is the locus of inference, what the probans, what the probandum. Jayanta answers him by formulating an inference as follows : - *Caitra's absence-inside-house is charactrised by Caitra's presence-outside-house, because it is a living person's absence-insidehouse, just like that earlier observed person's absence-insidehouse"; with a view to emphasizing that here is an ordinary case of inference it is added that this is exactly like inferring in a locus fire from smoke. 33 It can easily be seen that an invariable concomitance established on the basis of conceptual analysis is here sought to be understood after the manner of an invariable concomitance established on the basis of observation, an essentially misleading endeavour. Then the Mimāṁsaka had argued that since the very knowledge of Caitra's absence-insidehouse coupled with the knowledge that Caitra is alive includes the knowledge of Caitra's presence-outside-house, there could be no question of inferring the latter from the former; Jayanta retorts that neither the knowledge of Caitra's absence-inside-house nor the knowledge that Caitra is alive includes the knowledge of Caitra's presence-outside-house, for what happens is that the former two pieces of knowledge taken together act as probans for the last piece of knowledge. 54 The Mimāṁsaka makes his point clear by suggesting that the former two pieces of knowledge taken together constitute the last piece of knowledge; Jayanta retorts that the knowledge of probans does not constitute the knowledge of probandum, just as knowledge of smoke does not constitute knowledge of fire.38 To this is added that on the

Page #73

64
INDIAN LOGIC
Mimamsaka's own showing the former two pieces of knowledge taken together make possible the positing of the last piece of knowledge (this being his account of how the present one is a case of arthāpatti), the point being that the difficulty just urged against the present one being a case of inference also apply to it being a case of artha patti 36 We have already remarked that the Mimamsaka is confusingly saying that the present one is a case of one piece of knowledge leading to another piece in virtue of a conceptual analysis, not in virtue of an observation; this is his intention where he points out to the Nyāya author that here the former piece of knowledge includes (or is one with) the latter piece of knowledge. Exploiting the Mimāṁsaka's confusion Jayanta submits that if one piece of knowledge includes (or is one with) another piece of knowledge the latter's mention apart from the former should be an impossibilty. Thus lacking a términology that should do justice to the phenomenon of conceptual analysis, the Mimamsaka and Nyāya authors fought a battle that was partly just and partly unjust on the part of either. Under the title "Svabhāva-anumana' the Buddhist too was really describing such cases of inference as are based on a conceptual an. alysis rather than observation, but like the Mimāmsaka he too was much confused on the question though in his own manner. Jayanta, who had no sympathy either with the Mimamsaka thesis on arthāpatti or with the Buddhist thesis of svabhava-anumana, reminds the Mimāmiaka that the former thesis is substatially open to the same charge as the latter thesis. 37.
Incidentally, Jayanta criticizes the Prabhākarite's understanding of arthapatti in general and the present case in particular. Thus on the Prabhakarite's showing in inference the instrumental kaowledge' remains unaccounted for unless the 'resultant knowledge' is posited, in arthāpatti the opposite happens. 38 For exa. mple when fire is inferred from smoke the knowledge of smoke remains unaccounted for unless the knowledge of fire is posited: on the other hand, in the present case of arthāpatti the knowle. dge of Caitra's presence-outside-house remains unaccounted for unless the knowledge of his absence-inside-hous; coupled with

Page #74

PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
his being alive is posited. 3 9 Jayanta ridicules this whole understanding by pointing out that if the resultant knowledge alleged to be something unaccounted for is already had, nothing further remains to be done. 40 The opponent suggests that what is already had is not the resultant knowledge as a particular case but it in its general nature; Jayanta retorts that that means that this knowledge is already had as standing in a relation of invariable concomitance, his point being that in that case arthapatti is nothing different from inference.41 Lastly, Jayanta cogitates as follows : "The knowledge of presence-outside-house remains unaccounted for unless the knowledge of absence-inside-house coupled with being alive is posited -- what does it mean? If it means that the former knowledge necessitates the latter knowledge it will be an ordinary case of inference where the knowledge of probans (of smoke, say) necessitates the knowledge of probandum (of fire, say). If it means that absence-inside-house (coupled with being alive) produces presence-outside-house, that will lead to the absurdity that for one moment our man will be neither inside house nor outside (for it will require a moment for him to be produced). Thus are refuted those too who make out that in inference instrumental knowledge necessitates resultant knowledge, in arthāpatti the object of the former knowledge produces the object of the latter · knowledge." 49 The fact of the matter is that conceptual analysis often yields two equivalent concepts which, for that very reason, can act as probans for one another; and the present case is actually such a case. Then we can say "If x is alive and absent-inside-house, x is present-outside-house" and also “If x is present-outside-house, x is alive and absent-insidehouse." The Prabhākarite labours under the misconception that all cases of arthāpatti are of such a type; and this misleads him into speaking as if in all cases of arthāpatti the resultant knowledge can act as the knowledge of probans does in an inference. As a matter of fact, inference and arthāpatti (=implication) are one and the same logical process, so that what is instrumental knowledge or resultant knowledge in the case of one is also the mame in the case of the other. Linguistic convention demands
5.

Page #75

66
INDIAN LOGIC
that the instrumental knowledge be called 'knowledge of probans' in the case of inference, knowledge acting as implier (implier knowledge)' in the case of arthāpatti, and that the resultant knowledge be called knowledge of probandum' in the case of inference, knowledge acting as implied (=implied knowledge)' in the case of arthāpatt; but it is nothing more than linguistic conventicn. Hence it is that it is wrong for the Prabhākarite to contend that in inference the instrumental knowledge remains unaccounted for unless the resultant knowledge is posited. while in arthāpatti the opposite happens. What is possible. is that there are cases of inference where the probans and the probandum can probans to each other; but even in such cases what is probans for the time being is probans alone, what is probandum for the time being is probandum alone, so that it cannot be said that the thing which is probans from the standpoint of inference becomes probandum from the standpoint of arthāpatti or vice versa, Then a word might be said. about a knowledge necessitating another knowledge and the object of the former knowledge producing the object of the latter knowledge, the former supposed to take place in inference, the latter in arthāpatti. If we keep in mind the fact that inference and arthapatti are the identical processes, then the Prahbākarite thus appears to be saying that in inference the knowledge of probans necessitates the knowledge of probandum, in arthāpatti the probans produces the probandum. Really, the cases of inference where the probans happens to be the cause of the probandum are a class not clearly recognized by our logicians whose standard case had an effect (viz. smoke) for the probans and its cause (viz. fire) for the probandum. But this class is an ordinary class of inference provided care is taken to specify that a cause in order to act as probans must be a total cause (a cause acting as probandum can well be a part-cause). Even so. the inferences based on a causal consideration are precisely those where the concerned relation of invariable concomitance is established by way of making an observation, and they have to be distinguished from those where it is established by way of making a conceptual analysis. Thus even if it is granted that an inference where the probans is a cause and the probandum its effect is to

Page #76

PRAMĀNA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHAVA
be called arthāpatti, the fact reamins that to infer Caitra's presence-outside-house from Caitra's absence-inside-house (coupled with his being alive) is not at all an inference based on a causal consideration but one based on a conceptual analysis. But the Prabhākarite speaks as if this inference is a case of arthāpatti and that for the reason that Cajtra's presence-outside is produced by Caitra's absence-inside-house. Jayanta has taken pains to show how. Caitra's absence-inside-house cannot go to produce Caitra's presence-outside-house, but that is something self-obvious. What is noteworthy is that Jayanta himself does not realise that the concerned relation of invariable concomitance is here arrived at by way of a conceptual analysis: for we have already found him arguing that it is arrived at by way of frequent observation. But the method of frequent observation is solely the method of establishing causal relationship so that in a way the Prabhākarite's mistake is Jayanta's mistake also. The anomaly ramains hidden from Jayanta because he is under the mistaken impression that all sorts of relationship (all involving an invariable concomitance) can be established on the basis of frequent observation.. For the rest, the most important valid point of Jayanta's present criticism of the Prabhākarite position is that arthāpatti is nothing different from inference.
After thus incidentally disposing of the Prabhakarite understanding of the arthāpatti-case under consideration, Jayanta resumes his criticism of the corresponding Kumārilite understanding. Thus the Kumārilite has argued that the invariable concomitance between absence-inside-house and presence-outside-house cannot be established on the basis of observation, but in this connection he has actually considered not this invariable-concomitance but one between presence-inside-house and absence-outside-house.. We have already noted this anomaly and Jayanta makes a skilful use of it. Thus he submits that the needed invariable concomitance can well be established with the help of observation. 48 Not that it can actually be so established, but it can certainly be established in the sense in which this Kumārilite understandsat. So Jayanta first argues that by directing his criticism not

Page #77

INDIAN LOGIC
against the invariable concomitance that is actually needed but on one that is not needed the Kumārāilite has virtually deserted the arthapatti sub-type under consideration. 44 And again he says that the criticism in question is in any case perverted. Jayanta's line of attack is revealing in its own way. Thus he points out that in the case of a non-ubiquitous subtance its presence at a particular place establishes without effort (aklesena) its absence at every place other than this place. 45 By using the phrase-without effort' Jayanta in effect concedes that what is thus established is a finding of conceptual analysis rather than of frequent observation. But his conscious understanding nevertheless remains that here too invariable concomitance is established on the basis of observation. Thus he asks the Kumārilite : "If a thing's absence at every place other than the place of its actual location cannot be grasped through observation, what about the absence of smoke at every place where fire is absent?»?46 Jayanta's point is that the latter absence must be grasped through observation or all inference becomes impossible. The Kumārilite pleads that on having observed that x is accompanied by y'in so many cases and unaccompanied by y in not a single case .one concludes that x is a valid probans for y; Jayanta retorts: "But the requirement of a valid probans is that x must be unaccompanied by y in not a single case observed or otherwise."'47 Jayanta promises to develop his point at a later stage but his meaning must be that even without observing all cases where x occurs it should be somehow possible to say that 'm never occurs unaccompanied by y. Really speaking, all establishment of a relation of invariable concomitance is aimed at rendering unnecessary all further observation, but the question is whether this, establishment itself does or does not necessarily require observation. Under the title “arthāpatti' the Kumārilite is in fact drawing our attention to such cases of inference where the concerned relation of invariable concomitance is estabieshed not through observation but through conceptual analysis. As a matter of fact, it is this peculiarity of these cases that misleads him into thinking that these are cases not of inference but of arthāpatti, Jayanta, on his part, is right when he treats these cases as cases of inference,

Page #78

PRAMĀNA WRTHĀPATTI WND WBHAVw but essentially misconceived is his endeavour to show that here too the concerned relation of invariable concomitance is established through observation rather than conceptual analysis. So far as observation-based in variable concomitances are concerned the Kumārilite and Jayanta understand them in an essentially identical fashion, and on this question they both rather markedly differ from the Buddhist who insists that the obtaining of such an invariable concomitance between the two things must necessarily mean the obtaining of a causal relationship between them. So the question aboye posed by Jayanta before the Kumāri!ite should be answered in a radically new way not by the latter but by the Buddhist who would say: “When x and y are proved to be causally related then and then alone does it become possible to say that x never occurş unaccompanied by y."
Lastly Jayanta criticizes the sixth subtype of arthāpatti posited by the Kumārilite and one where a sentence is alleged to imply another sentence. Jayanta's general contention is that like all sub-types of arthāpatti it too is a case of inference, but he particularly objects to the suggestion tbat here it becomes necessary to positfirst a sentence and then its meaning; his simple point is that in all inference the knowledge of probans necessitates the knowledge of probandum, and a case like the present one where the former knowledge is had through verbal testimony. poses no new problem, so that it should not be impossible here to have the latter knowledge without having before 'the mind's eye a corresponding sentence.*. The Kumārilite pleads that the sentence concerned, being incomplete, must be completed first and then the meaning of the supplemented sentence must be added to that of the original sentence; Jayanta retorts : “There is nothing, incomplete about the original senten ce. What has to be done is to understand its meaning and then draw the inference that might be necessary. And even granting that the original sentence is incomplete there is no need to add a further sentence to it, it being sufficient to add to the meaning of this sentence whatever new meaning that might seem necessary.”49 Then is dismissed as unfounded the fear that adding a . new meaning without adding the corresponding sentence should turn

Page #79

70
INDIAN LOGIC
this new meaning into something non-Vedic; thus Jayanta says: “The new meaning should be something non-Vedic rather in case a new sentence is also posited, for this sentence must obviously be absent in Vedas. And if it is pleaded that a sentence implied by a Vedic sentence must itself be something Vedic, then why not grant that the meaning implied by the meaning of a Vedic sentence must itself be something Vedic, thus avoiding an unnecessary step in the form of positing a new sentence.”50 What Jayanta says obviously makes sense, but he goes on to report that the present Kumarilite position has been criticized by the Prabhākarite also, though in his own manner; (at the close of his enquiry Jayanta even confesses that this manner of solving the problem is as worthwhile as his own.51) The Prabhakarite begins by submitting that the meaning implied by the meaning of a sentence is also to be treated as a meaning yielded by this sentence on the ground that this implied meaning is yielded never except in the presence of the sentence in questions. In this connection he bases himself on the consideration that the practical exigencies of priestly ritualism often require that a word not present in a Vedic sentence be treated as present there, a word present there be treated as not present there, a word present there in one form be treated as present there in another form; and his argument is that if despite all this the resultant meaning is treated as a meaning yielded by this sentence itself then the meaning implied by this resultant meaning should likewise be treated as a meaning yielded by this sentence itself, it being immaterial that the words expressing this implied meaning are not present there in this sentence; (in this connection a passing reference is made to the Prabhākarite theory that the meaning of a sentence is yielded by this sentence as a whole so that it should not be much emphasized as to what words are used in a sentence, what words not used, what words used in this way rather than that).63 Then a dig is made of the Kumārilite by adding that this way even the implied meaning becomes a direct meaning of the sentence concerned, and not an indirect meaning (as-it should be on the showing of the Kumārilite who derives the implied meaning only after having first posited the corresponding sentence.)56

Page #80

PRÁMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
The Kumārilite pleads that a meaning cannot to posited unless the corresponding word is somehow present there; the Prabhakarite retorts that even when a word is present there in a Vedic sentence it is given only such meaning as suits the total sentential meaning required by the concerned ritual context, his point being that a sentence yields the necessary meaning irrespective of whether the corresponding word is present there or not. 56 The Kumarilite argues that on the opponent's understanding all meaning yielded by a word should have the same status, so that there should be, for example, no difference between the literal and the figurative meaning of a word; the point is supported by referring to the circumstance that the Mimāṁsā rules of Vedic interpretation require that a sentence yielding its meaning in one manner is more authoritative than one yielding its meaning in another, which rules should lose all sense on the opponent's understanding according to which all meaning yielded by a word has the same status. 56 The Prabhākarite replies that even if a word can yield all sorts of meaning depending on the sentential context it does have a nuclear meaning comparing with which differentiation and classification can be made among the meanings yielded by this word in different contexts; e.g. the word “lion' (possessed of a nuclear meaning) means one thing when referring to the beast called by this name, another thing when referring to a brave. man.57 This explanation allows the Prabhākarite to do justice to those Mimāṁsa rules of Vedic interpretation appealed to by the Kumárilite; for the former too can now distinguish between a Vedic sentence yielding meaning in one manner and the same yielding meaning in another manner.58 This Kumāri. lite-versus-Prabhākarite controversy should make it clear that the sixth sub-type of arthāpatti posited by the Kumārilite is in the main theologically motivated.
Here closes Jayanta's consideration of the Mimāṁsā thesis on the pramāna called arthāpatti; now he proceeds to undertake a similar consideration of the Kumārilite thesis on the pramāna called abhava.

Page #81

INDIAN LOGIC
(iv) On Abhāva Jayanta's consideration of the pramāna called abhāva (meaning absence, also called anupalabdhi meaning non-cognition) which the Kumarilite alone posits is important because in this connection certain such issues have been raised as were a topic of animated controversy among our philosophers. Thus the Kumärilite and the Naiyāyika were of the view that 'absences' constitute a group of independent reals existing by the side of positive reals, but they differed among themselves as to how the direct cognition of an 'absence' takes place. That an 'absence can be indirectly cognized through inference was conceded by both, but while the Naiyāyaka held that an 'absence', just like a positive real, is directly cognized through perception the. Mimāṁsaka held that an 'absence', unlike a positive real, is directly cognized never through perception and always through an independent pramāna called abhāva. This difference of opinion is at the centre of Jayanta's attention in the present part of his text, but he also incidentally considers at due lengh the corresponding posit. ions maintained by the Buddhist and the Prabhākarite. Thus both the Buddist and the Prabhākarite denied that 'absences' constitute a group of indepencent reals and the former developed an elaborate theory as to how an 'absence as understood by him is cognized directly and how it is cognized indirectly. All this Jayanta subjects to criticism after having disposed of the Kumārilite thesis on the pramāna called 'abhāva'. [The criticism of Kumārilite and the Buddhist is preceded by a lengthy presentation of their respective cases, the criticism of the Prabhākarite case is pretty brief.]
The Kumārilite submits that when no pramāna is found to operate with a view to cognizing x we have a case of cognizing 'absence of x' through the pramāņa called "abhāva (i. e, absence of all pramāna)'.' Then realizing that a pramāna must be a state of the concerned cognizing soul (preferahly, a positive such state) it is given out that abhāva as thus understood is of the form of 'non-production of a corresponding transformation in the concerned cognizing soul' or 'cognition pertaining

Page #82

PRAMANA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHAVA
to something else'; the meaning of the former expression is understandable, that of the latter is 'cognition pertaining to the locus of the absence concerned' (Jayanta is wrong when he explains the latter as 'cognition of the absence concerned').' The Kumarilite's point is that when x is not cognized while the locus concerned is cognized we have a case of cognizing 'absence of x' through abhāva. And such an odd type of pramāna is posited by him because he is convinced that an 'absence' cannot be grasped through perception; this he seeks to demonstrate by arguing that no sort of contact can take place between a sense-organ and an absence'.3 The demonstration, in fact, amounts to arguing that no sort of relation obtains between an 'absence' and its locus; for according to the standard Nyāya formula (not as such rejected by the Kumārilite) it should always be possible to tell as to what sort of contact takes place between a sense-organ and an object of preception once it is found out as to what sort of relation obtains between this object and its locus. As a general rule (to which there is an above exception) an object-of-perception is either a physical substance or something inhering in a physical substance or something inbering in a thing that inheres in a physical substance, and the Kumarilite is in essence saying that an 'absence' belongs to none of these three categories. The Naiyāyika, with a view to coining a new category, submits that an 'absence' qualifies its locus, so that 'something qualifying a physical substance should be the description of an 'absence' in its capacity as an object-of-perception. The Kumārilite poohpoohs thiş stratagem by insisting that x cannot qualify y unless x stands related to. y. either through the relation called conjunction or through the relation called inherence, and an 'absence? stands related to its locus through neither of these relations, nor does he himself posit any relation between an 'absence' and its locus. However, from all this the Kumārilite does not draw the conclusion that an 'absence' is no independent real but just that it is not an object of perception.
The Kumārilite does not deny that the locus of an 'absence'. must be made an object of perception, but this precisely is why

Page #83

74
::
INDIAN LOGIC
he refuses to concede that this "absence' itself is an object of perception; thus he argues tbat the locus of an 'absence' is an object of perception but not this absence' itself just as the colour of a distant column of fire is an object of perception but not its touch. It is admitted that in the cited illustration the touch of fire is an object of inference, 5 but the implication is not that an 'absence' is cognized through inference. For a little later on it is argued that an 'absence cannot be cognized through inference because in this case it cannot be ascertained as to what acts as the locus-of-inference, what as the probans, what as the probandum, also because here it is impossible to formulate the needed relation of invariable concomitance (which formulation requires that at some stage an absence' must have been made an object of perception). Let us recall that somewhat similar was the Kumārilite's mode of arguing when he was out to demonstrate that a case of arthāpatti is not a case of inference. But this time the suggestion that an 'absence' is cognized through arthāpatti is rejected even without being given a moment's thought.? And yet what actually happens is that if x and y are such that they are either both cognized together or both not-cognized together then in case x is cognized but not v this cognition-of* implies the cognition-of-'absence of y'. This in essence is how the Buddhist puts the matter when he would submit that here 'absence of y' is cognized through an inference of the svabhāva-anumāna type where 'cognition of x' acts as probans; (svabhāva-anumāna essentially covers the same ground as the Mimāṁsā's arthåpatti and the Buddhist is also of the view that an 'absence' is no independent real, so that what is here inferred is not an 'absence' as such but an usage as to absence). In any case, we have thus seen how on the Kumārilite's showing the cognition of an 'absence' is not a case of perception and not a case of inference. In the meantime he has considered a case which to him appears to clinch the matter decisively. Thus when one observes a place without particularly noticing whether x is present there or not, one can later on rightly say that x was absent there at that earlier occasion, the Kumārilite argues that this later cognition of ‘absence of x' is obviously not had

Page #84

PRA MĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHĀVA
75.
.
through perception but nor is it had through memory or inference both necessarily requiring a prior perception which here obviously did not take place.8 As a matter of fact, here the place concerned and x are such that if cognized together they must be recalled together, so that the fact that the place is recalled but not x implies that x was not cognized along with the place; (really, the possibility is not ruled out that x was present there but was not noticed, but let us ignore that possibility.) Thus this case is essentially of the same type as the case when a floor is perceived and 'absence of jar' on this floor is cognized through implication, a cognition which according to the Kumārilite is had neither through perception nor through inference but through a new pramāṇa called abhāva.
Jayanta begins his refutation of the Kumarilite case by arguing that the perceptual cognition the jar is absent on the floor' is of the same type as the perceptual cognition 'curd is present in the bowl', so that just as both curd and bowl are an object of perception both 'absence of jar' and floor are an object of perception. His point is that here an employment of eyes at once reveals both floor and 'absence of jar', this unlike the case of inferring fire from smoke where smoke is revealed to eyes but not fire. V To this is added that the present case is also unlike the case where the colour of a distant fire is perceptually cognized through eyes but not its touch, the point being that it is impossible for eyes to cognize touch but not to cognize an 'absence'.11 Really, Jayanta is simply taking for granted that an "absence' is an independent real and that it is an object of perception; in point of fact, the first proposition which is basic is of extremely doubtful validity. However, he does consider the objection that an 'absence' which is devoid of colour should not be an object of visual perception; his answer is that an atom even while possessed of colour is not an object of perception. 1 2 Similarly, the objection that an 'absence' which does not come in contact with an eye should not be an object of perception is answered by saying that sky even while coming in contact with an eye is not an object of perception. 1 3 Both these answers are

Page #85

76
INDIAN LOGIC
invalid and the simple fact is that the normal mode of a senseorgan producing perceptual cognition just makes no sense in the alleged case of the perceptual cognition of an 'absence'. In any case, Jayanta next frankly admits that the rule that a sense-organ must come in contact with the concerned object-of-perception holds true only when the object happens to be a positive entity and not when it happens to be an absence'.14 The objection that in that case an 'absence' existing anywhere in the world should become an object of perception is rejected on the ground that an 'absence' in order to become an object of perception must reside in a locus which is itself such an object. 16 To this is added that the needed contact too can be well conceived if it is granted that an “absence' is related to its locus by way of the relation called qualifier-and-qualificand, it being promised that the reality of this relation as something distict from the famous relation conjunction and inherence will be demonstrated not much later on.16 At this stage the Mimāṁsåka objects that the contacttypes in question posited by the Naiyāyika are all fictitious, it being his point that all that a sense-organ requires is the ability to perceive its appropriate object; Jayanta repljes first by saying that a sense-organ can well have the ability to perceive an Sabsence' and then by saying that the contact-types in question are but a detailed description of a sense-organ's ability to perceive its appropriate object. 17 Really, an 'absence' conceived as an independent real is a highly untenable concept and so Jayanta's position that an 'absence' thus understood is a possible object of perception is as much misconceived as the Kumarilite's counterposition that it is not a possible object of perception. However, interesting is Jayanta's consideration of that case where having perceived a vacant place one later on rightly says that x was absent there at that earlier occasion; on Jayanta's showing, all 'absences' existing at the place in question were perceptually cognized through a mixed-cognition that also perceptually cognized this place itself, so that the later cognition of one of these absences' is a case of memory plain and simple. 18 In this connection the Kumarisite is reminded that since he too grants that the place in question is cognized as a vacant place he in effect

Page #86

PRÁMĀNA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHAVA
grants that all the absences' occurring at this place are cognized when this place is cognized (for 'a vacant place' meaning 'a place accompanied by all the "absences" that occur at this place'). However, the Kumārilite has a a point when he insists that the
in question is not a case of simple memory; for to cognize 'absence of x' is to cognize it consciously (just as to cognize x is to cognize it consciously) while it is admitted on all hands that in this case 'absence of x' was not cognized consciously at the time when the place was cognized, so that in this case there can take place at a later occasion no simple memory of absence-of-x'. This is not to say that the Kumarilite is also right when he insists that in this case 'absence of x' is cognized through a new called adhāva; for as has already been shown, here the earlier 'absence of x' is an implication of the fact that at a later occasion x is not recalled even while the place is being recalled.
Having thus disposed of the Kumārilite case on the question of the alleged new pramāna abhāva, Jayanta directs his attention towards the corresponding Buddbist case. The peculiarity of the Buddhist case is that here''absences' are not posited as a group of independent reals existing by the side of positive entites; even so, a view is here formulated as to what is meant when one says that one is cognizing an 'absence'. These two aspects of the Buddhist case Jayanta presents one by one and then criticizes them both from his own standpoint.
The Buddhist begins by submitting that an 'absence' is not something real, so that it is pointless to consider whether it is an object of this type of pramāņa or an object of that type of it.19 It is then 'argued that an 'absence' is doubtless not cognized independently as a positive entity, nor is it cognized as related to the place concerned, the time concerned, the counterpositive concerned.90 The suggestion that the relation of qualifier-and-qualificand obtains between an 'absence' and its locus is rejected on the ground that y cannot act as qualifier to x unless there already obtains between y and x either the relation called conjunction or that called inherence, it being further added that all relation of qualifier-and-qualificand is a subjective imposition on things rather than an objective property of things.1.

Page #87

-78
INDIAN LOGIC
The Buddhist is somehow referring to his famous position that the properties of a thing are nothing over and above this thing so that even if an 'absence' is a qualifying property of the thing acting as its locus it can be nothing over and above this thing; (however, this important point is here developed just in passing and not in a clear-cut fashion). Then is considered the question whether a relation can possibly obtain between an absence and its counterpositive. The suggestion that an ordinary positive relation obtains between the two is rejected on the obvious ground that the two do not exist simultaneously, but on the same ground is rejected the suggestion that there obtains between the two the relation called 'opposition', that is, the type of relation that obtains between a jar and the stick that breaks up this jar. 22 Thus it is argued that 'absence of a jar', since it is something incapable of performing a function, cannot break up a jar.? 3 The Budd hist's point here is that an 'absence', since it is not an independent real, cannot act as a cause, but he soon goes on to argue his famous position that even a positive thing supposed to be a cause of destruction is never actually such a cause inasmuch as all thing automatically undergoes destruction as soon as it is born.24 However, even this position is in a way relevant for the present discussion, for destruction is supposed to be an important type of absence' (so-called 'posterior absence') and the Buddhist is here telling us as to how destruction is nothing over and above the concerned positive things. Thus on his showing the stick falling on a jar does not bring about an 'absence' called 'destruction of jar' but the positive entities called 'potsherds', his point * being that if destruction of jar' is something apart from this jar then this jar should be visible there even after 'destruction of jar' has been brought about.95 The opponent pleads that the potsherds are themselves what constitutes 'absence of jar'; the Buddhist retorts that in that case the destruction of these potsherds, being a destruction of 'absence of jar', must mean re-emer. gence of the jar.6 The opponent's plea is based on the consideration that 'absence of jar' occurs precisely at the place where the potsherds occur, the Buddhist's retort is based on the sonsideration that 'absence of jar' is nothing apart from the

Page #88

PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHAVA
potsherds. The Buddhist buttresses his point by saying that if the potsherds, even while doing nothing to the jar, are to be called 'absence of jar' they might as well be called 'absence of cloth'.27 Then the opponent is asked whether an 'absence is somethihg of the form of being or something of the form of nonbeing; in the former case it becomes absolutely akin to a positive entity, in the latter case it becomes something eternal and something lacking all reason why it should be an absence of this thing rather than that.2 8 The opponent pleads that two different things should become identical with each other unless it is conceded that they are characterized by each other's 'absence'; the Buddhist retorts that on this logic another series of 'absences' will be required to distinguish a positive entity from an 'absence“, a third series to distinguish one 'absence from another, nothing of the sort being actually posited by the opponent.29 Lastly, the opponent asks the Buddhist as to what according to the latter is the meaning of the word 'not'; the Buddhist first submits that in any case this meaning is not an 'absence' conceived as something independently real, and then says: “When added to a noun it means a thing different from the thing denoted by this noun, when added to a verb it means non-occurrence of the act denoted by this verb; (e. g. 'not-house' means a thing other than a house, 'not-going' means not undertaking the act of going)."30
At this stage a somewhat new topic is introduced. For the opponent argues that if an 'absence' is nothing real then the eleven types of ‘non-cognition' posited by the Buddhist logicians ought to be devoid of a proper objects 1. In this connection the eleven types of non-cognition are enumerated as follows (each being supposed to make possible the cogition of 'absence of x') :
(1) non-cognition of x (2) non-cogoition of a cause-of-x
non-cognition of a superimplicant-of-x (4) non-cognition of an effect-of-x
cognition of a contradictory-of-x cognition of an effect-of-a-contradictory-of-x cognition of a subimplicant-of-a-contradictory-of-x .

Page #89

30
INDIAN LOGIC (8) cognition of a contradictory-of-an-effect-of-x . (9) cognition of a contradictory-of-a-subimplicant-of-x :
(10) cognition of a-contradictory-of-a-cause-of-x (11) cognition of an effect-of-a-contradictory-of-a-cause
of-739
The Buddhist replies that the eleven types of non-cognition make possible not a cognition-concerning-absence but a dealingconcerning-absence.83 His point is that when a non-cognition takes place there arises a case of practically treating as abgent the thing not-cognized, not a case of cognizing as an independent real the 'absence of this thing. The opponent reminds the Buddhist that according to the latter a non-cognition leading to a dealing-concerning-absence is a case of svabhāva-anumāna while in such an anumāna (=inference) the probans and the probandum are one with each other, which is not the case with the probans and the probandum in question; the Buddhist replies that what a non-cognition leads to is not actual dealing-concerning-absence but the ability for such dealing while this ability is certainly one with this non-cognition.34 But then the opponent objects that a non-cognition which must be something negative cannot be one with an ability which must be something positive; the Buddhist replies that a non-cognition is not a mere absence of cognition but a cognition of something else, that is, it being something positive. 38 To this is added that thus is also answered the objection that a non-cognition, being itself of the form of an 'absence'. will require for its own cognition another non-cognition and that will lead to an infinite regress (for a non-cognition is now of the form of a positive cognition).3 6 These questions-andanswers constitute the essence of the Buddhist's case on the question as to how an 'absence'is cognized, but they are couched in a highly technical terminology and one which is partly misleading. For otherwise what the Buddhist is saying is very much tenable. Put in plain language, his contention is that a case of non-cognition of x is a case of absence-of-x, so that wherever one fails to cognize x one has the right to say that x is absent. So, we here have an equation whose two sides represent two equivalent (equiextensive) concepts, something which always happ

Page #90

PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHAVA
81
ens when one concept is defined in terms of another. And the cases of svabhāva-anumāna are cases of inference where the probans and the probandum are two such concepts that the former implies the latter or the two imply each other. This means that the cases of one concept being defined in terms of another are cases of svabhava-anumāna where the probans and the probandum are two such concepts that they imply each other (for two eqivalent concepts do imply each other). Hence it is that according to the Buddhist the case of a non-cognition making possible dealing-concerning-absence is a case of svabhāva-anumāna where this non--cognition is the probans and this dealing the probandum; (here by speaking of 'dealing-concerning-absence' instead of 'cognition-cocerning-absence' it is emphasized that the present is a case of just defining the concept 'absence' and not of asserting that an 'absence' is an independent real). Lastly, by emphasizing that a non-cognition here spoken of is not a mere absence of cognition but a positive cognition it is made out that an 'absence' is noticed never except in a noticed locus. As put thus all this sounds quite plausible, but the Buddhist's technical terminology - partly misleading - considerably obscures all this. Thus it is difficult to see what he means by saying that in a case of syabhava-anumāna the probaps and the probandum are one with eachi other and how in the present case this identity is not retained when the probandum is 'dealing-concerning-absence' but retained when it is ‘ability for dealing-concerning-absence'. So we must remember that the fact that a svabhava-anumāna is a case of one concept implying another is expressed by the Buddbist by saying that in a svabhāva-anumāna the probans and the probandum are one with each other. Again, it is realized that even when two concepts are actually equivalent they are so treated only by one to whom the equivalence concerned is evident; hence it is contended that a case of non-cognition is not actu only potentially a case of dealing-concerning absence.
Lastly, the Buddhist raises a point which is in fact a common point of all logicians. Thus, it is stressed that the non-cognition of a thing for whose cognition conditions are not available will

Page #91

INDIAN LOGIC
not mean an absence of this thing; (in Jayanta's presentation th: distinction is made betwven things inherently imperceptible and things otherwise, but even a thing not inherently imperceptible might at times be in no position to be cognized even when present).37 In this connection an exception is made in the case of absence of identity'; thus the fact that x is different of y is not. iced as soon as x is noticed irrespective of whether y is something inherently imperceptible or otherwise.88
• Then begins Jayanta's refutation of the above Buddhist case. Thus he submits that the cognition 'x is present' is absolutely on a par with the cognition 'x is absent', so that the Buddhist should either treat both as genuine or dismiss both as illusory but he should not treat the former as genuine and dismiss the latter as illusory 39 What Jayanta here has in mind is the Buddhist position that all deterimnation of the nature of a thing on the part of . thought is something illusory, and his point is that on this logic a positive determination should be as much illusory as a negative determination. But the Buddhist is also of the view that there exist only positive things and no 'absences. So, directing his criticism against this view Jayanta argues that when a jar is present on the floor we say “jar exists on the floor', when a jar is absent on the floor we say “ 'absence of jar' exists on the floor’”; the Buddhist's plea that in the latter case we observe floor-devoid-of-jar is rejected on the ground that being devoid of jar' can mean nothing but being possessed of "absence of jar" ? 1 The Buddhist's point is that when we cognize x and not y we say 'x is present and y is absent' or 'x is characterised by absence of jo?? but that there do not then exist two things, viz. x and 'absence of y'; thus on his showing 'absence of y' is just an aspect of the nature of x as determined by the appropriate thought-activity. With this sort of argumentation Jayanta's difficulty is that he readily grants that more than one thing might exist at one place at one time; e. g. where a jar exists there also exist its colour, its touch its action, its 'universal, and so on and so forth, so that here there might also exist 'absence of cloth' 'absence of cow and so on and so forth. These so many things co-existing with the jar are for Jayanta so many independent reals, for the Buddhist they are so

Page #92

PRAMANA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHAVA
83
many aspects of Wie jar's nature as revealed by thought. However, the Buddhist also somehow distinguish between a thing's positive feature of the form of quality, action etc. and its negative feature of the form of absence' and suggests that the latter is even less independent than the former; it is this distinction that Jayanta doggedly refuses to grant. Thus the Buddhist submits that the cognition of 'absence' is a mere thought-born cognition, his point being that it is not a cognition rooted in a perception (i. e. a physical encounter with things real); Jayanta retorts that this cognition arises in the wake of perception exactly as does a positive type of thought-born cognition. 4 2 The Buddhist seeks to wriggle out of the difficulty by suggesting that a thought-born cognition is after all not of the form of pramāņa; Jayanta reminds him that on the latter's own showing a perception is pramāņa precisely to the extent that the concerned post-perceptual thought is authentic, Jayanta's point being that this consideration applies irrespective of whether the thought concerned is positive or negative. 4 3 The Buddhist pleads that acting in accordance with a positive thought one gets at a real positive thing; Jayanta retorts that acting in accordance with negative thought one gets at a real 'absence', particularly emphasizing that, on the Buddhist's own showing 'to be r itself means 'not to be not-x'. 44 In this connection Jayanta quotes several instances where an 'absence' is of practical significance in our everyday life, his point being that it will not do to dismiss absence as a phenomenon of no consequence. 4 5 It can easily be seen that the Buddhist is denying that an 'absence' is an independent thing, he is admitting that it is an aspect of the nature of an independent thing. Now for him it is the very definiton of an independent real thing that it produces perceptual cognition concerning itself, and so he argues that an 'absence' is not something independent real because it does not produce perce. ptual cognition concerning itself.48 To this Jayanta first replies that since the Buddhist's momentarism would not allow that a thing should become object of a perceptual cognition through producing this cognition, the latter can only say that this thing somehow becomes object of this cognition, something that can be said about an 'absence as about a positive thing; and then he goes on

Page #93

INDIAN LOGIC
to add that according to his Nyāya school an 'absence', just like a positive thing, is well capable of producing a perceptual cognition concerning itself.71 As a matter of fact, the Buddhist is very particular about insisting that a real, independent, physical thing acting on a sense-organ produces a perceptual cognition concerning itself, and since such acting is not possible on the part of a feature positive or otherwise of this thing he avers that such a feature is not a real, independent, physical thing; on the other hand, Jayanta's theory of 'contact' allows all sorts of features of a thing to become an independent object-of-perception. But here again one noteworthy point is that Jayanta would not let the Buddhist make a fundamental distinction between a positive feature and a negative one. Thus the Buddhist argues that if an 'absence' too can produce a perceptual cognition concerning itself .then nothing should distinguish an 'absence' from a positive thing; Jayanta retorts that an 'absence' produces one sort of perceptual cognition, a positive thing another sort of it, just as a colour produces one sort of perceptual cognition, a taste another sort of it.*s In this connection an incidental anomaly of the Buddhist's stand deserves notice. Thus according to him a physical thing is in fact a conglommerate of its five sensory features so that when he speaks of a physical thing acting on a sense-organ he thinks of the colour, taste etc. of this thing acting on an appropriate sense-organ; as for the rest of this thing's features, positive or otherwise, they, according to him, are but different aspects of this thing's nature. So when he argues that unlike a positive thing an 'absence does not produce a perceptual cognition concering itself he wishes to emphasize that an 'absence' is not an independent thing; Jayanta understands him to argue that a positive feature of a thing does and an 'absence' does not produce a perceptual cognition concering itself because the two are so unlike each other, and retorts that both do so just As both colour and taste do so even if colour and taste are so unlike each other. On his own presuppositions, the Buddhist should plead that a colour or a taste can produce a perceptual cognition concerning itself because it is an independent thing but that neither a positive feature nor an 'absence' charactersing this colour or this taste should produce a perceptual cognition concerning Itself because neither is an independent thing. Not that this way

Page #94

PRAMĀŅA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHĀVA
of putting things will convince Jayanta that a feature positive or otherwise of a thing cannot be an independent object of perceptual cognition (for he has his own view of the matter), but it will make the Buddhist's position clearer. Actually, Jayanta concludes by saying that an 'absence' has its own way of producing a perceptual cognition concerning itself just as a positive thing has its own, 49 it being his further understanding that a positive thing might be of the form of a substance, a quality, an action, a universal, or what not.
Jayanta next considers the Buddhist's objection that no cosceivable relation obtains between an 'absence' and its locus, it being the latter's point that the proposed relation called qualifier-andqualificand presupposes either of the recognized relations conjunction and inherence. As a matter of fact, the Nyaya school came to posit 'absence' as an independent real rather late, and when it was posited no particular thought was given to the question as to how it should stand related to its locus. Otherwise, inherence was the school's standard relation supposed to relate things belonging to all sorts of categories (an exception being the relation conjunction supposed to relate two substances), and so it could be easily maintained that an 'absence' resides in its locus by way of it herence. Hence it was that the later Nyāya authors began to say that an 'absence resides in its locus by way of the relation called qualifier-and-qualificand. But since wherever x and y stand related x can be called a qualifier and y a qualificand (or vice versa) the opponents objected that the relation in question, unless strictly defined, is no particular relation. It is this objection as raised by the Buddhist that Jayanta is considering presently. Thus he begins by pleading that the rule that the relation qualifier-and-qualificand presupposes another recognized relation does not hold good when one relatum happens to be an 'absence." To this is added that the rule does not necessarily hold good even in case both the relata are something positive, the point being that x and y might be related without one being a qualifier and the other a qualificand while, on the other hand, x might be a qualifier toy without any other relation obtaining between x and y; th: formår aspe: is illustrated by saying that one is not called

Page #95

86
INDIAN LOGIC
a staff-holder (=one qualified by a staff) in case one tramples a staff under foot or places a staff on one's head, the latter by saying ihat the relation samavāya qualifies its locus and is not yet related to this locus by any other relation.51 Then it is argued that the relation qualifier-and-qualificand does not presuppose another relation just as the relation invariable concomitance or the relation denoter-and-denoted does not. 69 Lastly, it is con- , tended that the relation qualifier-and-qualificand can obtain between x and y even if the two relata are such that either can be called a qualifier and the other a qualificand: 53 Thus is concluded that the relation obtaining between an 'absence' and its spa
locus, as also between it and the time-of-its-occurrence, is to be called 'qualifier-and-qualificand'. 54 The issue is reopened by referring to two cases where the relation concerned has to be given the name 'qualifier-and-qualificand', there being no other conceivable relation in picture, thus an action is related to the agent-of-action as also to the object-of-action by way of the relation thus named (for this action is related by way of inherence to the bodily organs of the agent but not to this agent himself who must be the soul concerned, nor to the object-of-action).55 The whole discussion is a clear proof of the ad hoc character of the Nyāya thesis under defence. The 'sub-topic is closed by contending that the relation between an 'absence' and its counter-positive is one called 'opposition' which consists in the fact that the two do not exist together (the Buddhist had demanded that in all relation the relata concerned must exist simultaneously).56
Jayanta next considers the Buddhist's objection that an 'absence' can be neither something of the form of being nor something of the form of non-being. He begins by contending that it is something of the form of non-being, 57 his point being that its essence lies in the fact that the counterpositive concerned does not exist. But soon it is argued that an 'absence' is of the form of being because it requires a cause, it being emphasized that it does not thereby turn into a positive entity. 58 This occasions a consideration of the famous Buddhist thesis that the destruction of all thing is uncaused. Thus on Jayanta's showing the destruction of a jar requires a cause like stick etc. just as its production

Page #96

PRAMĀNA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHĀVA
87
requires a cause like lump-of-clay ete.59 The Buddhist pleads that the stick cruse; not destruction of the jar but production of the potsherds; Jayanta retorts that even in that case the stick must cause destruction of the capacity-to-produce-jar (for otherwise, the jar must be seen to exist alongside the potsherds). 6 0 The Buddhist pleads that the jar possesses the capacity to produce both jar and potsherds; Jayanta retort; that even in that case the services of the stick are after all required (for otherwise both jar and potsherds should be seen to exist there from the very beginning or potsherds should not be seen to exist there even after the stick has been applied).61 The Buddhist pleads that the jar possesses the capacity to produce potsherds; Jayanta retorts that in that case the role of the stick remains enigmatic (for the fact is that the jar is replaced by potsherds never except after the stick has been applied).62 The Buddhist pleads that after the stick has been applied the jar ceases to be there; Jayanta retorts that the statement “jar ceases to be there' is absolutely equivalent to the statement 'absence-of-jar has come about'. 6 3 The Buddhist protests: 'At that time nothing happens to the jar, what happens is that the jar is not there'; Jayant& retorts: "To say that the jar is not there is to say that the absence-of-jar is there”. 64 The Buddhist denies the validity of the equation in question; Jayanta retorts: "In the statement 'the jar is not there' there occurs the word jar' and the word 'not'; we know what the former word means the latter word means "absence' 65 Here again the crux of the controversy lies in the circumstance that according to the Buddhist a causal relationship obtains only between independent things, not between their features positive or otherwise, while according to Jayanta it might obtain between all sorts of things and all sorts of features-of-a-thing. Thus when a stick applied to a jar breaks it into potsherds there does come into existnce 'absence of jar' according to the Buddhist as well as Jayanta; but the former will say that this "absence' is just a negative feature of the potsherds which are what has been really caused, the latter will say that this 'absence' is what has been really caused while the potsherds just happen to be the locus of this 'absence.” [The important question as to why according to the Buddhist the 'absence of a thing must come about as

Page #97

02
INDIAN LOGIC
TA
soon as this thing is born is left unconsidered here, though Jayanta promises a consideration of it too.66]
Jayanta closes his consideration of the Buddhist's case with a brief critical reference to the latter's contention that non-cognition of x leading to a congnition of absenceof-x is a case of svabhāva-anumana. The Buddhist has argued that an 'absence' being no independent real what the others call 'cognition-of-absence' he calls dealing-concerning-absence, and this dealing-concerning-absence (rather ability for such dealing) is nothing different from the non-cognition concerned, that being the reason why this non-cognition making possible this dealing-concerning-absence (rather ability for such dealing) is a case of svabhāva-anumāna. Jayanta's refutation of all this is hinged on his understanding that an 'absence is an independent real.c? He would not mind if ten out of the eleven types of non-cognition spoken of. by the Buddhist in this connection are a case of an 'absence being inferred rather than perceived, but he is emphastic that the first type, viz. the bare non-cognition of x making possible the cognition of 'absenceof-x' is a case of an 'absence' being perceived rather than inferred 8. Really, it is the cases covered by his first type of non-cognition that the Buddhist treats as cases of svabhāva-anumana, and it will be useful to recall that it is these very cases which the Kumārilite treats as cases of the pramāna called abhāva; for this way we can clearly see where the three parties in dispute stand vis-a-vis each other.
At this stage Jayanta briefly considers the Prabhākarite understanding of the matter, and the consideration is revealing in its own manner. Like the Buddhist the Prabhākarite too is of the view that an 'absence' is no independent real, a situation Jayanta finds so shocking, it being his belief that this view goes counter to an established Mimāmsa position. 6. Jayanta's puzzlement is somewhat understandable, for as in the case of his thesis on self-cognitive cognition here too the Prabhākarite has borrowed a position from the Buddhist without any intention of drawing from it the so many far-reaching conclusions the latter has drawn.
in both cases Jayanta seeks to press home to the Prabhā.

Page #98

PRAMANA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHAVA
karite just this point. Thus the Prabhākarite shares with the Naiyāyika and the Kumārilite a basic framework of thought
rding to which the various categories represent so many types of independent real; to put it concretely, they all would say that subtances are a type of independent real but that so also are qualities, actions, 'universals' etc. But then the Prabhākarite makes an exception in the case of 'absences' and declares in a Buddhist-like fashion that they are no independent real, an attitude which Jayanta proceeds to criticize. He first takes exception to the Prabhākarite saying “What happens is that a jar is not cognized, not that 'absence of jar' is cognized", the latter's point being that in such a case to speak of 'absence of jar' is a mere manner of speaking; Jayanta retorts that by arguing this way the Prabhākarite is suggesting that whenever x is not cognized 'absence of x' is posited, a suggestion which is untenable in the cases where x happens to be something inherently imperceptible or something imperceptible for the time being, even if it is tenable in the cases where x happens to be something utterly u The difficulty is that the point thus urged by Jayanta was a common point of Indian logicians and has nothing to do with whether an 'absence' is or is not an independent real; (we have actually found the Buddhist making this point all right, and yet according to him an 'absence' is not independent real). Jayanta next argues that to say that 'absence of x' is unreal is to say that x is something everlasting, but since he soon goes on to add After all, you do not subscribe to the view that a thing lasts for one moment only' it is difficult to see his point.71 For dissociating oneself from the Buddhist's momentarism one might concede that a thing perishes only when a cause-of-destruction is available, and yet one might share the Buddhist's view that an 'absence' is no independent real. So keeping in mind some such defence from the Prabhākarite's side Jayanta asks: “When a stick falls on the jar, what is produced ?", the answer that potsherds are then produced is dismissed by saying: “ But then the jar should be available there as before.”71 Jayanta's point is that unless the answer asked for is that 'absence of jar' is thus produced the contingency cannot be avoided that the jar should

Page #99

90
INDIAN LOGIC
be available there as before. Jayanta thus refuses to concede that 'absence of jar' is not something independently real but just an aspect of the nature of potsherds, but to be fair to him it must be admitted that this mode of arguing is something natural to a Buddhist, something foreign to a Prabhākarite. Lastly, Jayanta raised a point basing himself on the consideration that the meaning of a word must represent something real, a consideration broadly valid in the eyes of a Prabhākarite, a Kumārilite, a Naiyāyika even if not so in the eyes of a Buddhist; thus the Prabhākarite is asked: “Since 'unlike the Buddhist you do not hold that a word represents a mere idea, please tell what according to you is the meaning of the word 'not.'73 Here again, Jayanta will receive an answer where the mode of arguing followed will be something natural to a Buddhist, something foreign to a Prabhākarite; for this answer will consist in contending that the word 'not' does possess a meaning but that this meaning represents nothing that is independently real.
Jayanta closes the topic by reporting as to how 'absence was classified into types variously by various authorities, a point not of much fundamental importance. For the really fundamental question was as to whether an 'absence' is or is not an independent real existing by the side of the thing characterised by this 'absence', a question answered in the negative by the Buddhist and the Prabhākarite, in the affirmative by the Naiyāyika and the Kumārilite. Even so, let it be noted that the types here spoken of are six in all and as follows:
(1) 'prior absence' or absence before coming into existence (2) posterior absence' or absence after going out of existence (3) ‘mutual absence' or absence of identity (4) 'absolute absence' or utter absence (5) 'relative absence' or temporary absence (6) 'absence of a capacity'
(the sixth type is obscure and might cover those cases where the Mimāṁsaka would speak of destruction of a capacity')

Page #100

PRAMĀNA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHAVA
Towards the fag end of this chapter Jayanta refers to the view which considers Sambhava and Aitihya to be independent pramāņas. But Jayanta contends that Sambhava is not different from Anumāna (Inference) and that Aitihya is but Agama (Verbal Testimony). He rejects Cárvāka view that it is impossible to determine the number of pramānas. All this Jayanta has done within a very short space of hardly a page.

Page #101

REFERENCES (All references are to Nyayamanjari, L. D. Series No 48, L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad)
_References : Introduction pp. 1-16 . ... 1 एते चत्वारो वेदाः... प्रायेण प्रतन्यते । 4 (page No.) 2 अङ गानि म्याकरण-कल्प-ज्योति:-शिक्षा-छन्दोनिरुक्तानि वेदार्थोपयोगिपदा
दिन्युत्पादनद्वारेण विद्यास्थानत्वं प्रतिपद्यन्ते । 4 3 विचारमन्तरेणाम्यवस्थितवेदवाक्यार्थानवधारणाद मीमांसा वेदवाक्यार्थविचारा.
त्मिका वेदाकरस्येतिकर्तव्यतारूपमनुविभ्रतीति विद्यास्थानतां प्रतिपद्यते 1 4 4 न्यावविस्तरस्तु...परं विचास्थानम् ।.5 5 पूर्वत्र तर्कशन्देनोपात्तमुत्तरत्र च न्यायविस्तरशन्देनैतदेव शास्त्रमुग्यते । न्यायस्त
र्कोऽनुमानम् । सोऽस्मिन्नेव शास्त्र व्युत्पाद्यते । 6 6 साङख्याहतानां तावत् क्षपणकानां कीदृशमनुमानोपदेशकौशलं कियदेव
तत्तण बेदप्रामाण्यं रक्ष्यते इति नासाविह गणनाहः ...गणनाबसरः। 6 7 बैशेषिका: पुनरस्मदनुयायिन एव...। 6 8 इयमेवान्वीक्षिकी...तद्व्युत्पादक शास्त्रमान्वीक्षिकी। 6 9 ननु चतसरचेद् विद्या तत्कथं चतुर्दशं दशिताः ? नैष विरोधः । वार्ता
दण्डनीत्योदृष्टंकप्रयोजनत्वेन सर्वपुरुषार्थोपदेशिविद्यावर्गे गणनानहत्वात् त्रय्या
न्वीक्षिक्योश्च तत्र निर्देशाच्चतुर्दशैव विद्याः। 7 . 10 ननु बेदप्रामाण्यनिर्णयप्रयोजनश्च न्यायविस्तरः, कृतमनेन, मोमांसात एव
तस्सिद्धेः। तत्र यर्थविचारवत् प्रामाण्यविचारोऽपि कृत एव ।। सत्यम्, स कानुषङ्गिकः । तत्र मुख्यस्त्वविचार एव। पृथक्प्रस्थाना
होमा विद्याः । सा च वाक्यार्थविद्या, न प्रमाणविद्या । 7 12 न च मीमांसका: सम्यग् वेदप्रामाग्यरक्षणक्षा सरणिमवलोकयित कुशलाः ।
कुतकंकण्टकनिकरनिरुद्धसञ्चारमार्गाभासपरिभ्रान्ताः खलु ते इति
पक्ष्यामः। 7 13 न हि प्रमाणान्तर..शास्त्रे व्युत्पादयिष्यते । । 14 नम्बक्षपादात् पूर्व कुतो वेदप्रामाण्यनिश्चय आसीत् ? ...आदिसर्गात् प्रभृति
वेदवरिमा विद्याः प्रवृत्ताः । संक्षेपविस्तरविवक्षया तु तांस्तांस्तत्र कत नाचक्षते ।।

Page #102

PRAMĀNA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHAVA
93
15 कुतः पुनरस्पर्षेरपि निश्चितमतित्वं जातम् ? उच्यते। भवति तावदेष
निश्चितमतिः, स तु तप:प्रभावाद् वा देवताराधनाद वा शास्त्रान्तराभ्यासाद्
वा भवत् । १ . 16 ननु षोडशपरार्थतत्त्वज्ञानस्य कथं निःश्रेयसाधिगमहेतुत्वमिति वक्तव्यम् । वेद
प्रामाण्यसियषं चेदं शास्त्रमिति तावन्मात्रमेव व्युत्पाद्यतां, कि षोडशपदार्थ
कम्याग्रपनेन । 17 17 उच्यते । आत्मापवर्गपर्यन्तद्वादशविधप्रमेयज्ञानं तावदन्यज्ञानानौपयिकमेव साक्षा
दपवर्गसाधनमिति वक्ष्यामः । तत्त्वज्ञानान्मिथ्याजाननिरासे सति तन्मूलः
संसारो निवर्तते इति प्रमेयं तावदवश्योपदेश्यम् । 17 18 तस्य तु प्रमेयस्यात्मादेरपवर्गसाधनत्वाधिगम आगमैकनिवन्धनः । 17 19 तस्य प्रामाण्यनिर्णीति .....प्रमेयवदुपदेष्टव्यम् । 17 20 संशयादयस्तु पदार्था यथासम्भवं प्रमाणेषु प्रमेयेषु चान्तभवन्तोऽपि न्यायप्रवृत्ति
हेतुत्वात् पृथगुपदिश्यन्ते । न्यायश्व बेदप्रामाण्यप्रतिष्ठापनपूर्वकत्वेन पुरुषार्षोपयोगित्वमुपयातीति दशितम् । 18
References : On Defining Pramāna pp. 17-43 । म्यापारवत् कारणं करंणम् । 2 अव्यभिचारिणीमसन्दिग्धामर्थोपलग्धि विदधती बोधाबोधस्वभावा सामग्री प्रमाणम् । 25 5 . . .
. 3 (i) ननु च प्रमीयते...अतिशयं ब्रूमः ? 25 __(ii) भपि च, कस्मिन्...तद् व्याहन्यते । 26
(iii) न लोकोऽपि..इत्याचक्षते । 26 यत एव .साधकतमं करणं करणसाधनब प्रमाणशब्दः, तत एव सामग्रयाः प्रमाणत्वं युक्तम् । तद्व्यतिरेकेण कारकान्तरे क्वचिदपि तमवर्थसंस्पर्शानुपपत्तेः । अनेककारकसन्निधाने कार्य घटमानमन्यतरम्यपगमे च विघटमानं कस्मै भतिशयं प्रयच्छेत् ? न चातिशय: कार्यजन्मनि कस्यचिदवधार्यते, सर्वेषां
तत्र व्याप्रियमाणत्वात् । 26 5 सग्निपत्यजनकत्वमतिशय इति चेत्, न, भारादुपकरकाणामपि कारकत्वान.
पायात् । ज्ञाने च जन्ये किमसन्निपत्यजनकम्, सर्वेषामिन्द्रियमनोऽर्थादीनामितरेतरसंसर्ग सति ज्ञाननिष्पत्तेः । 26
मथ सहसव कार्यजननमतिशयः । सोऽपि...करणं स्यात् । 27 7 तस्मात् फलोत्पादाविनामाविस्वभावत्वमवश्यतया कार्यजनकत्वमतिशयः । स
च सामग्रयन्तर्गतस्य न कस्यचिदेकस्य कारकस्य कथयितु पार्यते । बामग्रयास्तु

Page #103

94
INDIAN LOGIC
सोऽतिशयः सुवचः । सन्निहिता चेत् सामग्री सम्पन्नमेव फलमिति सैवाति- शयवती। 27 8 यत्त किमोक्ष सामग्रयाः करणत्वमिति तदन्तर्गतकारकापेक्षमिति ब्रमः । 28
समग्रसन्निधानाख्यधर्मस्य प्रत्यक्षोपलम्भात् । पृथगवस्थितेषु हि स्थाली-जलज्वलन-तण्डुलादिषु न समग्रताप्रत्ययः, समुदितेषु तु भवतीत्यतस्तन्तुपटलपरिघटितपटाद्यवयविवत् कारककलापनिष्पाद्यद्रव्यान्तराभावेऽपि समुदायात्मिका
सामग्री विद्यते एव । 29 10 कारकाणां धर्मः सामग्री न स्वरूपहानाय तेषां कल्पते, साकल्यदशायामपि
तत्स्वरूपप्रत्यभिज्ञानात । 28 11 तस्मान्न परिचोदनीयमिदं...विद्याचतुष्टयं समाहितम् । 29 12 साकल्यप्रसादलब्धप्रमितिसम्बन्धनिवन्धनः प्रमातृप्रमेययोमुख्यस्वरूपलाभः ।
साकल्यापचये प्रमित्यभावाद, गौणे प्रमातृप्रमेये सम्पद्यते । 28 . 13 यत्त्वभ्यधायि सामग्रयाः करणनिर्देशो न दृश्यते इति तत्रोच्यते । सामग्री हि
संहतिः । सा हि संहन्यमानव्यतिरेकेण न व्यवहारपदवीमवतरति । तेन
'सामग्रया पश्यामि' इति न व्यपदेशः। 29 . 14 “यस्त दीपेन्द्रियाणां तृतीयानिर्देशः स फलोपजननाविनाभाविस्वभावत्वाख्य
सामग्रीस्वरूपसमारोपणनिबन्धनः । अन्यत्रापि च तद्रूपसमारोपेण 'स्थाल्या
पचति' इति व्यपदेशो दृश्यते एव । 29 . 15 अपरे पुनराचक्षते...कारकं करणमुच्यते। 30 . , 16 तदेव च तृतीयया व्यपदिशन्ति, 'दीपेन पश्यामि', 'चक्षुषा निरीक्षे', 'लिङगेन
बुध्ये', 'शब्देन जानामि' 'मनसा निश्चिनोमि' इति । 30 . . 17 ननु त्रीण्येव कारकाण्यस्मिन् पक्षे भवेयुः । ज्ञानक्रियायां तावदेवमेवैतद् यथा
भवानाह । पाकादिक्रियासु क्रियाश्रयधारणाद्युपकारभेदपर्यालोचनया भवत्वधिकरणादिकारकान्तरव्यवहारः । प्रमितो तु मनोदीपचा रादेनं लक्ष्यते
विशेष इति तत सर्व करणत्वेन सम्मतम् । 30 18 कस्तेषु तमबर्थ इति चेत्...तेषामतिशय इति । 30 19 ये तु बोधस्यैव प्रमाणत्वमाचक्षते, न सूक्ष्मदर्शिनस्ते । 31 . 20 बोधः खलु...प्रामाण्यमनुमन्यन्ते । 31 21 यस्तु प्रमा प्रमाणमिति प्रमाणशब्दः स प्रमाणफले द्रष्टव्यः । 31 . 22 तदयुक्तम , सकलजगद्विदितबोधेतरस्वभावशब्दलिङ्गदीपेन्द्रियादिपरिहार
प्रसङ्गात् । 32

Page #104

95
PRAMANA ARTHĀPATTI AND ABHAVA 23 तस्मात् सामग्रयनुप्रविष्टबोधो विशेषणज्ञानमिव क्वचित् प्रत्यक्षे, लिङ्गज्ञानमिव
लिङ्गिप्रमिती, सारूप्यदर्शनमिवोपमाने, शब्दश्रवणमिव तदर्थज्ञाने प्रमाणतां
प्रतिपद्यते । 32 24 अन्ये तुल्यसामग्रयधीनयोः...तत्र प्रामाध्यमिति । 32 25 स चायमर्थक्षणो ज्ञानसमकालस्ततः पूर्वाम्यां ज्ञानार्थक्षणाभ्यामुपजनित इति
तत्कर्मतां प्रतिपद्यतां, न पुनः स्वसमानकालप्रसूतज्ञानक्षगकर्मतामिति । 33 26 हन्त तहि सहोत्पन्नयोः समानसामग्रीकयो:...निराकरिष्यमाणत्वात् । 33 27 ये हि निराकारस्य बोधरूपस्य...वक्ष्यते । 34 28 प्रतिकर्मव्यवस्था तुल्यजनकत्वनिबन्धना भविष्यति, वस्तुस्वभावस्यापर्यनुयो
ज्यत्वात् । साकारपक्षेऽपि पर्यनुयोगसाम्यमित्यादि सर्वमुपरिष्टात् सविस्तर
मभिधास्यते । 35. 29 अर्थस्तु साकारज्ञानवादिनो न समस्त्येव...अवशिष्यते। 34 30 (i) अफलजनकस्य प्रमाणत्वापत्तेरित्युक्तत्वात् । 33 (ii) साकारपक्षेऽपि च न प्रमाणाद् व्यतिरिक्त फलमुपदर्शितमित्यसत्पक्ष
एवायम् । 35 31 शाबरास्तु ब्रुवते य एते बोधप्रामाण्यवादिनो विज्ञानादभिन्नमेव फलमभिदधति - ते बाढं निरसनीया भवन्त्येब, वयं तु विज्ञानाद् भिन्नमेव फलमर्थदृष्ट
ताख्यमभ्युपगच्छामः । 36 32 ज्ञानं हि नाम क्रियात्मकं...फलेन कल्प्यते । 36 33 अहो बंत इमे केभ्यो बिभ्यतः श्रोत्रियाः परं किमपि वैक्लव्यमुपगताः ।
न खलु नित्यपरोक्षं ज्ञानं भवितुमर्हति, 'ज्ञातोऽर्थः' इति क्वचित् तद्विशिष्टार्थप्रत्यवमर्शदर्शनाद् विशेषणाग्रहणे 'शुक्लः पट:' इतिवद् विशिष्टप्रतीतेरनुत्पादात् । कश्चायमियान सन्त्रासः। विषयग्रहणकाले विज्ञानाग्रहणमात्रकेण
बाह्यार्थनिह्नववादिन: शाक्या: शक्या: शमयितुम् । 37 34 यत्त क्रियास्वभावत्वात् तस्य परोक्षत्वं...कि क्रियया ? 37 35 ननु करोतीति कारकम् । क्रियावेशमन्तरेण कारकत्वानुपपत्तेः । सत्यम्,
करोतीति कारकम्, तत्त, फलमेव करोति, न क्रियाम् । 38 36 ननु करोतीति यद् ब्रूषे...व्यापारो नास्तीति ब्र महे । 38-40 37 ननु पाको नाम...पिठराद् विना । 40-41 38 ननु पिठराद् विना काष्ठानि ज्वलन्ति, न तु पचन्ति । मैवम् । सत्यपि पिठरे
ज्वलन्त्येव काष्ठानि, नान्यत् कुर्वन्ति दृश्यन्ते । तस्मात् क्रियान्तराभावात् फलमेवोररीकृत्य कारकाणि संसृज्यन्ते । 41

Page #105

INDIAN LOGIC
39 ननु फलमपि सिद्धं चेत् ...न विवदामहे । 41 .40 ननु पाक इदानीं क....इति व्यपदेशो दृश्यते। 42 41 न हि पुरुषव्यापारः कश्चिदुपलभ्यते । विशिष्टगुणसमवाय एवास्य कर्तृत्वम् ।
न च ज्ञानादयो गुणा एव न्यापारसंज्ञावाच्याः, सिद्धस्वभावत्वात् । 43 42 अपि च 'पटमहं जानामि' इत्यत्र भवतः किं प्रतिभासते ? घटमिति तावद्
विषयः, अहमित्यात्मा, जानमीति तु चिन्त्यम्-किमत्र प्रकाशते इति । न म्यापारः, परोक्षत्वात् । फलं तु यद्यत्र प्रकाशते तदेव तहि धातुवाच्यमभ्यु
पगतं भवति । तस्मात् न क्रियात्मकं ज्ञानम् । 43 ..... 43 यदि च क्रियात्मकं ज्ञानमभविष्यन्न भाष्यकारः क्रियातः पृथगेनं निरदेक्ष्यत ।
निर्दिशति च 'बुद्धिकर्मणी अपि हि प्रत्यभिज्ञायेते, ते नित्ये प्राप्नुतः' इति। तस्माद्
अन्यत् ज्ञानम्, अन्या च क्रियेति, न क्रियास्वभावत्वान्नित्यपरोक्षं ज्ञानम्। 43 44 यदि च नित्यपरोक्षो ज्ञातव्यापारः, स तर्हि प्रतिबन्धाग्रहणादनमातुमपि न
शक्यः । 43 45 क्रियाविशिष्टबाह्यकारकसिद्धान्तस्य निरस्तत्वात् । आत्माद्यनुमाने का वार्तेति ।
चेत, न, तत्र सामान्यतो न्याप्तिग्रहणस्य सम्भवादिति वक्ष्यामः । इह
त बाह्यकारकेष्वपि न तत्पूर्वकं फलं दृष्टम् । 46 न चार्थापत्तिरपिज्ञातृव्यापारकल्पनार्य प्रभवति, इन्द्रियार्थसन्निकर्षवशादेवार्थ
दृष्टताया घटमानत्वात् । 44 47 का चेयमर्थदृष्टता नाम, किं दर्शनकर्मता, किं प्रकाशस्वभावतेति ? तत्र
दर्शनस्य परोक्षत्वात् कथं तत्कर्मताऽर्थस्य दृष्टता गृह्येत ? विशेषाग्रहगे विशिष्टप्रतीतेरनुत्पादात् । अर्थप्रकाशतायोस्तु , सर्वान् प्रत्यविशेषात् सर्वे
सर्वज्ञाः स्युः। 45 48 न स्युः, सम्बन्धितयोत्पादादिति चेत्, अकारणमेतत् । अर्थस्यैव हि प्रकाश
स्वमतिशयो दीपादेरिव, न पुरुषनियमेन व्यवतिष्ठते । 45 49 संवेदनमपि प्रज्ञैः कस्यातिशय उच्यते ? ।
ज्ञातुश्चेदन्तराऽन्येन व्यापारेणास्य को गुणः ? ॥ ननु नैव क्रियाशून्यं कारकं फलसिद्धये । उक्तमत्र क्रिया ह्येषा यथादर्शनमिष्यताम् ॥ ज्ञानं संवेदनं चेति विमः पर्यायशब्दताम् ।
संवेदनं तु ज्ञानस्य फलत्वेन न मन्महे ॥ 46 50 स्वसंवेद्या च संवित्तिरुपरिष्टान्निषेत्स्यते ।...
स्वप्रकाशमते युक्तं न फलं संविदात्मकम् ॥ 46 ..

Page #106

PRAMANA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHĀVA 51 यदपि प्रमाणविशेषणमनधिगतार्थग्राहित्बमभिधीयते परैस्तदपि न साम्प्रतम् ।
प्रमाणस्य गृहीततदितरविषयप्रवृत्तस्य प्रामाण्ये विशेषाभावात् । 48 90 52 (i) ननु गृहीतविषये...तदप्रमाणमिति व्यवस्थापयामः । 48 . . (ii) न च सर्वात्मना वैफल्यम्, हेये अहि-कण्टक-वृक-मकर-विषधरादौ
विषये पुनःपुनरुपलभ्यमाने मनःसन्तापात् सत्वरं तदपहानाय प्रवृत्तिः, उपादेयेऽपि चन्दन-घनसार-हार-महिलादो परिदृश्यमाने प्रीत्यतिशयः
स्वसंवेद्य एव भवति । 48 53 यत्रापि स्यात् परिच्छेदः प्रमाणरुत्तरः पुन: ।
नूनं तत्रापि पूर्वेण सोऽर्थो नावधृतस्तथा ।। 48 54 नवाधिकपरिच्छेदः प्रमाणैरुत्तरैधुवम् ।
धारावाहिकबोघेषु कोऽधिकोऽर्थः प्रकाशते ।।
न हि स्वहस्ते शतकृत्वोऽपि परिदृश्यमाने केचन विशेषाः परिस्फुरन्ति । 55 यदि चानुपलब्धार्थग्राहि मानमुपेयते ।
तदय प्रत्यभिज्ञायाः स्पष्ट एव जलाञ्जलि: ।। 50 56 यश्चेदानींतनास्तित्वप्रमेयाधिक्यलिप्सया ।
तस्याः प्रमाणतामाह सोऽपि वञ्चयतीव नः ।। 500 57 नन्वेतस्मिन् परित्यक्ते प्रामाण्यं स्यात् स्मृतेर पि ॥
न स्मृतेरप्रमाणत्वं गृहीतग्राहिताकृतम् । . अपि त्वनर्थजन्यत्व तदप्रामाण्यकारणम् ॥ 50 58 कथं तहि.:.प्रातिभम् । 51 59 अपरे पुनरविसंवादकत्वं प्रमाणसामान्यलक्षणमाचक्षते ।...
प्रदशितं वस्तु प्रापयतः प्रमाणत्वव्यवहारः । 52 60 तच्च प्रापकत्वं.. यथाऽध्यवसितप्रापकं च प्रमाणमिति मतम् । 52 61 तदेतदनुपंपन्नम् । इदमेव तावत् भवान् व्याचष्टाम्-प्रदर्शितप्रापकं प्रमाण.
मुताध्यवंसितप्रापकमिति ? तत्रानुमाने तावत् प्रदर्शनमेव नास्ति, का कथा तत्प्रापणस्य ! प्रत्यक्षे तु बाढं प्रदर्शनमस्ति, न तु प्रदर्शितं
प्राप्यते । 53 62 ननु काल्पनिकेऽपि सन्ताने...इति कदाशालम्बनमेतत् । 54 63 अव्यापंक चेदं लक्षणम् ....तथोपलम्भादिति । 55-56 64 ननु यावान् प्रमाणस्य व्यापारः प्रापणं प्रति ।
तावानुपेक्षणीयेऽपि विषये तेन साधितः ॥

Page #107

INDIAN LOGIC उक्त हि राशामादेष्ट्टत्वमेव हन्तत्वम् , प्रदर्शकत्वमेव ज्ञानस्य प्रापकत्वमिति । मैवम्एव प्रदशकत्वं स्यात् केवलं तस्य लक्षणम् ।
तच्च प्रचलदर्का शुजलज्ञानेऽपि दृश्यते ।। 56 65 ननु तत्र विपरीताध्यवसायजननादप्रामाण्यम् ।...स्थैर्ये तु तदप्रमाणम् , विष.
रीताध्यवसायकलुषितत्वादिति । 57 66 यद्येवमस्मिन् प्रक्रमे...अप्रमाणी भवेदिति । 58 . 67 अपि च प्राप्त्यप्राप्ती पुरुषेच्छामात्र हेतृ के भवतः । .
अर्थप्रतीतिरेव प्रमाणकार्याऽवधार्यते तस्मात् ॥ मानस्य लक्षणमतः कथयद्भिस्तद्विशेषण वाच्यम् ।
न पुन: प्रापणशक्तिः प्रामाण्यं कथयितु युक्तम् ॥ 58. 68 निरसिष्यते च सकल: कपिलमुनिप्रक्रिया प्रपञ्चोऽयम् । 60 69 साङ्ख्यास्तु बुद्धिवृत्ति: प्रमाणमिति प्रतिपन्नाः । विषयाकारपरिणतेन्द्रिया
दिवृत्त्यनुपातिनी बुद्धिवृत्तिरेव पुरुषमुपरञ्जयन्ती प्रमाणम् । तदुपरक्तो हि
पुरुषः प्रतिनियतविषयद्रष्टा सम्पद्यते । 59 , 70 तदेतदहृदयङ्गमम् । यो हि जानाति बुद्धयतेऽध्य वस्यति न तस्य तत्फलमर्थ
दर्शनमचेतनत्वान्महतः. यस्य चार्थदशन न स जानाति न बुद्धयते नाध्यवस्यतीति भिन्नाधिकरणत्वं प्रमाणफलयोः । ज्ञानादिधर्मयोगः प्रमाण पुसि
न विद्यते, तत्कलमर्थदर्शनं बुद्धौ नास्तीति । 59 71 अथ स्वच्छतया पुंसो बुद्धिवृत्त्यनुपातिनः ।
बुद्धेर्वा चेतनाकारसंस्पर्श इव लक्ष्यते ॥ एव सति स्ववाचैव मिथ्यात्वं कथितं भवेत् ।
चिद्धर्मो हि मृषा बुद्धौ बुद्धिधर्मश्चितो मषा ॥ 59 - 72 साकार ज्ञानवादाच्च नातीवैष विशिष्यते ।
स्वत्पक्ष इत्यतोऽमुष्य तनिधान्निषेधनम् ।। 60 References : On the Buddhist Twifold Classification of Pramana
____pp. 43-54 1 नन्वेतद भिक्षवो न क्षमन्ते -
ते हि प्रमेयद्वैविध्यात् प्रमाणं द्विविध जगुः । नान्यः प्रमाणभेदस्य हेतुविषयभेदत: ।। 64 विषयव प्रत्यक्षपरोक्ष भेदेन स्वलक्षणसामान्यभेदेन वा द्विविध एव, परस्परपरिहारव्यवस्थितात्ममु पदार्थेषु तृतीयराश्यनप्रवेशाभावात् ।

Page #108

PRAMĀNA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHAVA
तृतीयविषयासत्त्वपरिच्छेद एव कुतस्त्य इति चेत प्रत्यक्षमहिम्न एवेति
ब्रूमः । 64-65 3 नीले प्रवर्तमानं...सूचयतीत्येकप्रमाणव्यापार: । 65 4 यद्यपि निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष...व्यवहाराभावात् । 66
एव च परस्परपरिहार ..अप्रतिभासमानत्वात् । 66
ननु न त्वं द्वितीय मिव..प्रकारान्तरपराकरणमवगन्तव्यम् । 66-67 7 तत्र प्रत्वक्षे स्वलक्षणात्मनि...प्रत्यक्षस्य प्रवृत्त्यभावात् । 67-68 8 सम्बन्धग्रहणापेक्षमनुमान स्वलक्षणे ।
सजातीयविजातीयव्यावृत्ते वर्ततां कथम् ।। 58 समानविषयत्वे च जायते सदृशी मतिः । न चाध्यक्षधिया साम्यमेति शब्दानुमानधीः ।। तेजोऽन्यदेव नक्षत्र शशाङ्कशकलादिषु । . उदघाटितजगत्कोशमन्यदेव रवेमहः । 69 .. अन्यदेवेन्द्रियग्राह्यमन्य: शब्दस्य गोचरः ।।
शब्दात् प्रत्येति भिन्नाक्षो न तु प्रत्यक्षमीक्षते ॥ 69 11 अन्यथैवाग्निसम्बन्धाद् दाहं. दग्धोऽभिमन्यते ।
अन्यथा दाहशब्देन दाहार्थः सम्प्रतीयते ।। .69 12 यत्तावदिदमाख्यायि...का कथा भवतां मते ॥ 69-70 13. अथवा भवंतु नाम...प्रत्यक्षमिदमिति । 70 14 तथाहि -किमिदं विषयस्य प्रत्यक्ष नाम ? ...तत्कर्मताग्रहणासम्भवात् । 70 15 कथं पुनविषयग्रहणकाले तज्ज्ञानस्याप्रतिभासः ? नैव युगपदाकारद्वितयं प्रति
भासते, इदं ज्ञानमयं चार्थ इति भेदानुपग्रहात् । 7 16 यदि च गृहीतं ज्ञानमर्थ प्रकाशयेन्न द्वयीं गतिमतिवर्तेत । तद्धि ज्ञान ज्ञानान्तर
ग्राह्य वा भवेत् स्वप्रकाश वा। ज्ञानान्तर ग्राह्यत्वे त्वनवस्था मूलक्षतिकारी चेयमित्यन्धमूकं जगत् स्यादुपलम्भप्रत्यक्षतापूवकार्थप्रत्यक्षवादिनः । नापि
स्वप्रकाशं ज्ञानं जयत्वान्नीलपीतादिवत । 71 17 न च ज्ञानस्याप्रत्यक्षतायां...तत्रापि नातिप्रसङ्गः । 72 18 यच्चानुमानमप्युक्त विषयद्वयसिद्धये ।
तत प्रत्यक्षपरिच्छिन्नतद्विरोधनिबन्धनम् ॥ विरोधबोधसामर्थ्य प्रत्यक्षस्य च दूषितम् ।
तदंग्रहे च तन्मूलमनुमानं न सिद्धयति ।। 72-73 19 अथवा सत्यपि विषय विध्ये सामग्रीभेदात् फलभेदाच्च प्रमाणभेदो भवन
कथमपाक्रियते ।

Page #109

100
INDIAN LOGIC अन्ये एव हि सामग्रीफले प्रत्यक्षलिङ्गयोः ।
अन्ये एव च सामग्रीफले शब्दोपमानयोः ।। इति वक्ष्यामः । 73 - 20 यत् पुनरेकस्मिन्...तथा सति च संप्लवः ।। 73-74 21 तत्रैतत् स्यादविदितसौगतकृतान्तानामेतच्चोद्यम् । ते हि---
विकल्पविषये वृत्तिमाहुः शब्दानुमानयोः । तेभ्यः सम्बन्धसिद्धौ च नानवस्था न संप्लवः ॥... . तथाहि-दर्शनसमनन्तरोत्पत्त्यवाप्तदर्शनच्छायाऽनुरज्यमानवपुषो । 'विकरूपाः
प्रत्यक्षायन्ते । 74 22 तदुल्लिखितकाल्पनिकतदितरपरावृत्तिस्वभावसामान्याकारप्रविष्टोऽयमनमामव्यव.
हारः पारम्पर्येण मणिप्रभामणिबुद्धिवत तन्मूल इति . तत्प्राप्तयेऽवकल्पते,
न पुनः प्रत्यक्षकसमधिगम्यं वस्तु स्पृशति । 74 . ... 23 तदेतद् वञ्चनामात्रम । ......विकल्पारोपितयोरपोहयोः । 75 . 24 न च दृश्यसंस्पर्शशून्यात्मना विकल्पानां दर्शनच्छाया काचन सम्भवति । 75 25 अप्रमाणपरिच्छिन्नः प्रतिबन्धश्च तत्त्वतः । ,
न परिच्छिन्नः एवेति ततो मिथ्यानुमेयधी: ।। . अथाभिमतमेवेद बुद्धयारूढत्ववर्णनात ।
हन्त तात्त्विकसम्बन्धसाधनव्यसनेन किम ॥ 75 26 यथा च सामान्यविषये.....सामथ्यशमन क्रमः ।, 76 27 अनुमानमनिह नुत्य कथ संप्लवनिह्नवः ।। 76 , __ अपि च विषयद्वैविध्यसिद्धावपि प्रत्यक्षानुमाने एव परस्परमपि संप्लवैया
ताम् । यतःप्रत्यक्षत्व परोक्षोऽपि प्रत्यक्षोऽपि परोक्षताम् । देशकालादिभेदेन विषयः प्रतिपद्यते ।। 76 ................ सन्तानो यश्च कल्पितः ।
शितप्राप्तिमिद्धयादी संप्लवेऽपि स तादृशः ।। 76 30 यदपि जात्यादिविषयनिषेधमनोरथैः संप्लवपराकरणमध्यवसितं तत्र जात्यादिस
मथनमेवोत्तरीकरिष्यते । 77 31 यदपि विरोधवैफल्याभ्यां......विरोधार्थः । 77 32 यदपि प्रत्यक्षस्य....प्रमाणानां सम्प्लव इति सिद्धम् । 77-78 . 33 तदुदाहरणं तु भाष्यकार:....व्यवतिष्ठन्तेऽपीति । 78-79 .

Page #110

PRAMÂNA ARTHÅPATTI AND ABHÁVA
101 References : On Arthāpatti pp. 54-71 1 तत्र भादास्तावदित्थमर्थापत्तिमाचक्षते--दृष्ट: श्रुतो बाऽर्थोऽन्यथा नोपपद्यते
इत्यर्थान्तरकल्पनाऽर्थापत्तिः ।... एवं षट्प्रमाणप्रभवत्वेन षडविधाऽसौ
भवतीति । 79 2 तत्र प्रत्यक्षपूविका...शब्दपरीक्षायां वक्ष्यते । 80-81 3 अभावपूर्विका तु भाष्याकारेणोदाहृता-जीवतश्चैत्रस्य गृहाभाबमवसाय
तदन्यथाऽनुपपत्त्या बहिर्भावकल्पनेति । 81 4 पीनो दिवा च नात्तीति साकाङ क्ष वचन ते: ।
तदेकदेशविज्ञानं श्रुतार्थांपत्तिरुच्यते ।। 85 . 5 ननु दृष्टेनाऽदृष्टसिद्धरनुमानमेवेदं स्यात् ।...... न लिङ्गत्वम् । 81 6 अन्यथाऽनुपपत्त्या च प्रथमं प्रतिबन्धधीः । .
पश्चाद यद्यनुमानत्वमुच्यते काममुच्यताम् ॥ 83 7 अपि च प्रमेयानुप्रवेशप्रसङ्गादपि नेदमनुमानम् ।... अनुप्रवेशस्पर्शो विद्यते
इति । 82 8 नन्वर्थापत्तावपि...शक्यौ गृहबहिःस्थिती ।। 83 9 नन्वस्त्येव गृहद्वारे...अर्थापत्त्यैव तनिश्चयः । 83-84 10 नन्वित्थममुमर्थम् ...तस्येति सिद्धम् । 85 11 इहैवविधसाकाङ्क्षवचनश्रवणे ..रात्रिभोजनप्रत्ययः । 85 12 शब्दच न श्रुयमाण..प्रमाणं परिचिन्त्यताम् । 85-86 13 नाध्यक्षम... न वाक्यान्तरमन्तरेण । 86-87 14 तस्माच्छ. यमाणं वाक्यमेव तदेकदेशमन्तरेण निराकाङ्क्षप्रत्ययोत्पादकस्वव्या
पारनिर्वहणसन्धिमनधिगच्छत् तदेकदेशमाक्षिपतीति सेयं प्रमाणकदेशविषया
श्रतार्थांपत्ति: । 87 15 नन्वादेव...कुतस्तेन विना गतिः । 87-88 16 प्रायः श्रुतार्थापत्त्या च वेदः कार्येषु पूर्यते ।
- तत्रार्थः कल्प्यमानस्तु न भवेदेव वैदिकः । 88 17 एषा विचार्यमाणा तु भिद्यते नानुमानतः ।
प्रतिबन्धाद् विना वस्तु न वस्त्वन्तरबोधकम् ।। 89 18 यं कञ्चिदर्थमालोक्य न यः कश्चित प्रतीयते ॥ . प्रतिबन्धोऽपि नाज्ञातः प्रयाति मतिहेतुताम् ।
न सद्योजातबालादेरुदभवन्ति तथा धियः ॥ 19 न विशेषात्मना यत्र सम्बन्धजानसम्भवः ।
तत्राप्यस्त्येव सामान्यरूपेण तदुपग्रहः ॥ 89

Page #111

INDIAN LOGIC
20 अपि च तेन विना नोपपद्यते इति कल्पनमर्यापत्तिः ।... एव गमक इति
वक्ष्यामः । 90 21 याश्च प्रत्यक्षादिपूर्विकाः शक्तिकल्पनायामर्थापत्तय उदाहृताः ताश्च शक्त
रतीन्द्रियाया अभावाद् निविषया एव । 90 22 स्वरूपादुद्भवत कार्य सहकार्य पब हितात् ।
न हि कल्पयितु शक्त शक्तिमन्यामतीन्द्रियाम् ॥ 90 23 ननु शक्तिमन्तरेण...अभ्युपगम्यताम् । 90 24 तदेत ननुपपत्रम....मन:परमाण्वादिवत् । 9। 25 यदपि विषदहनसन्निधाने.... कार्य प्रतिहन्ति । 92 26 शक्तिपक्षेऽपि...कार्यदर्शनेनानुमीयमानत्वादिति । 92 27 किञ्च शक्तिरभ्युपगम्यमाना...अनवस्था । 93 28 दृष्टसद्धये...तत्कुतोऽनवस्था । 93 29 अत्रोच्यते-यद्यदृष्टमन्तरेण दृष्टं न सिद्धयतिः काममदृष्ट कल्प्यताम् । अन्य
थाऽपि तु तदुपपत्तौ किं तदुपकल्पनेन । दशिता चान्यथाप्युपपत्ति: । कल्प्य
मानमपि चादृष्टं तत् कल्प्यतां यदनवस्था नावहेत. धर्मादिवत् । 94 30 अपि च व्यापारोऽप्यतीन्द्रियः शक्तिवदिष्यते भवद्भिरन्यतरकल्पनयैव . कार्योत्पत्ते: किमुभयकल्पनागौरवेण । 94 31 शक्तमव्याप्रियमाणं......नोभयं कल्पयितु प्रभवति । 94 32 अपि वा शक्तिरतीन्द्रिया...सा शक्तिरिति । 94 33 अभावपूर्विकाऽप्यर्थापत्तिरनुमानमेव ।... चाडम्बरमात्रम् । 95 34 यत् पुन: प्रमेयानुप्रवेशदूषण...बहिर्भावाख्य प्रमेयम् । 96 35 ननु जीवनविशिष्ट... बहिर्देशयोगमात्रमपूर्वमनुमेयम् । 97.. 36 यदि तु तदधिकं प्रमेयमिह नेष्यते, तदा गृहाभाव-जीवनयोः स्वप्रमाणाभ्या
मवधारणादानर्थक्यमर्थापत्तेः । तस्मात् प्रमेयान्तरसद्भावात् तस्य च तदानी
मननुप्रवेशान्न प्रमेयानुप्रवेशो दोषः एब । 97 37 स्वभावहेताविव तद्बुद्धिसिद्ध या तत्सिद्धेः प्रमाणान्तरवैफल्यादिति । 97. 38 प्राभाकरास्तु प्रकारान्तरेणानुमानाद् भेदमत्राचक्षते । अनुमाने गमकविशेषण
मन्यथानुपपन्नम्-अनलं विना धूमो हि नोपपद्यते । 98 39 गम्यो बहिर्भावः, स जीवतो गृहाभावं विना नोपपद्यते, गृहानिर्गतो जीवन्
बहिर्भवतीति । 98 40 एतदपि ग्रन्थवैषम्योपपादनमात्रं, न तु नूतनविशेषोत्प्रेक्षणम् । गम्ये तावद
गृहीते सति तद्गतमनुपपद्यमानत्वं कथमवधायेंत ? गृहीते तु गम्ये किं तद्गतानुपपद्यमानत्वग्रहणेन । साध्यस्य सिद्धत्वात् । 98 .

Page #112

PRAMÂNA ARTHẤPATTI AND ABHAVA
103
41 पुरा तद्गतमन्यथाऽनुपपद्यमानत्वं गृहीतमासीदिति चेत्, अहो महान् अनुमानाद्
विशेषः । इदं हि पूर्व प्रतिबन्धग्रहणमुक्तं स्यात् । 98 42 अपि च बहिर्भावस्य...तदपि प्रत्युक्त भवति । 99 43 यत्त, सम्बन्धग्रहणाभावादित्युक्तं तदपि न सुन्दरम्, मन्दिरद्वारवर्तिनस्त
दुत्पत्तः । 100 44 एतच्च स्वयमाशङ्क्य... मुखमन्या अपि स्त्रियः ॥ 100 45 असर्वंगतस्य द्रब्यस्य नियतदेशवृत्तेरक्लेशेन तदितरदेशनास्तित्वावधार
__णात् । 100 46 अनग्निव्यतिरेकनिश्चये च धूमस्य भवतां का गतिः ? या तत्र वाती सैवे.
हापि नो भविष्यति । 100 47 न च भूयोदर्शनावगम्यमानान्वयमात्रैकशरणतया
यस्य वस्त्वन्तराभावो गम्यस्तस्यौव दुष्यति । मम स्वदृष्टिमात्रेण गमका: सहकारिणः ।। [लोकवा. अर्था. 80]
इति कथयितुमुचितम् । अनिश्चितव्यतिरेकस्य साध्यनिश्चयाभावादिति ___दर्शयिष्यामः । 100 , 48 श्रुतार्थापत्तिरपि वराकी... महान् भेदः । . 101-102 49 नन वचनमपरिपूण...सोपानान्तरेण । 102 50 यत्त कल्प्यमानस्यावैदिकत्वम्.... वेदार्थ एव भविष्यति । 103 . 51 श्रुतार्थापत्तिरस्माकं दूषणीयतया स्थिता ।
तदूषण च पूर्वोक्तवीथ्याऽनेन पथाऽस्तु वा ।। 107 52 प्राभाकरास्तु...तदुत्पादककारकाभावात् । 103 53 वृद्धव्यवहारतच शब्देषु...कि श्रुतार्थापत्त्या ? । 103-104 54 अत एव न सोपानव्यवहितं तस्यार्थस्य शाब्दत्वं, साक्षादेव तत्सिद्ध: । 104 55 ननु अश्रूयंमाणेषु निमित्तषु कुतस्तदर्थमवगच्छामः ? अनवगच्छन्तश्च कीदृशं
नैमित्तिकमवकल्पयाम: ? 105 56 मन्वेव सति सर्वत्र शब्दव्यापारसम्भवात् ।
मुख्यस्यापि भवेत साम्यं गौणलाक्षणिकादिभिः ॥ श्रुतिलिङगादिमानानां विरोधे यच्च वण्यते ।
पूर्वपूर्वबलीयस्त्वं तत्कथं वा भविष्यति ।। 105 57 उच्यते-सत्यपि सर्वत्र शब्दव्यापारे तत्प्रकारभेदोपपत्त रेष न दोषः ।
... प्रतीतिरुषजन्यते ॥ 106 58 श्रुतिलिङ्गादिभिः... न नियोगावगमे कश्चिद् विशेषः । 106-10?

Page #113

104
INDIAN LOGIC
References : On Abhava pp. 72-91
1 सत्परिच्छेदकं यत्र न प्रमाणं वर्तते ।
तदभावमिती मानं प्रमाणाभाव उच्यते ॥ 109 2- प्रत्यक्षादेरनुत्पत्तिः प्रमाणाभाव उच्यते ।
साऽऽत्मनोऽपरिणामो वा विज्ञानं वाऽन्यवस्तुनि ॥ [लोकवा. अभाव. 11]
'अन्यवस्तु' शब्देन घटाभाव एवोक्त: । 109 ... .. 3 तत्र तावदिदं नास्तीति ज्ञानं... घटाभावज्ञान चाक्षुषम् । 109-1io 4 ननु भूप्रदेशं च घटाभावं च... स्पर्शज्ञानवत । 110 5 तत्र यथा रूपानुमीयमाम... न चाक्षुषो घटाभावप्रतिभासः । .110 6 (i) न चानुमानगम्योऽयमभावः... साध्यप्रतीतेः सिद्धत्वात् । 111 112
(ii) अपि चेदमदर्शनाख्यं... तस्यानुमेयत्वम् । 112 . . 7 न चेदम 'इह धटो नास्ति' इति ज्ञानं शब्दोपमानार्थापत्त्यन्यतमनिमित्तमा
शकितुमपि युक्तम् । 113 . स्वरूपमात्रकेण गौरमूलकमुपलब्धवतः ततो देशान्तरं गतस्य तत्र केनचित गर्गोऽस्ति वा नास्ति वेति पृष्टस्य सतः स्वरूपमात्रं गृहीत गौरमूलकमनुस्मरतः तदानीमसन्निकृष्टऽपि गर्गस्याभावे तदैव तस्य . ज्ञानमुदेति, तन्द्रियकथापि
नास्ति. इति न तस्य प्रत्यक्षत्वम । 111 9 तथा च 'इह घटो नास्ति' इति ज्ञानमेकमेवेदम् इह कुण्डे दधि' इति
ज्ञानवत् । 113 10 उभयालम्बनम्... तद्भावभावित्वानुविधानात । 114 11 न च दूरस्थितहुतवह... रूपमपि चाक्षुषतामवजह्यात । 114 12 ननु नीरूपस्यासम्बद्धस्य च चाक्षुषत्वमभावस्य कथमभिधीयते ?
चक्षुर्जनितज्ञानविषयत्वाच्चाक्षुषत्वम् , न रूपवत्त्वेन; रूपवतामपि परमाणू
नामचाक्षुषत्वात । 115 13 सम्बद्धमपि न सर्व चाक्षुषम् , आकाशस्य तथात्वेऽपि तदभावात । 115 14 भावे खल्वयं नियमः यदसम्बद्धस्य चक्षुषाऽग्रहणम्... तस्मादवस्तुत्वादभावस्य
तेन सन्निकर्षमलभमानमपि नयनमुपजनयति तद्विषयमवगममिति न
दोषः । 115 15 न चासम्बद्धत्वाविशेषाद् देशान्तरादिषु सर्वाभावग्रहणमाशङ्कनोयम् , आश्रय
ग्रहणसापेक्षत्वादभावप्रतीतेः, आश्रयस्य च सन्निहितस्यैव प्रत्यक्षत्वात् ॥ 115 16 अथवा संयुक्तविशेषणभावाख्यसन्निकर्षोपकृत चक्षुरभावं ग्रहीष्यति ।...
यत्त क्त संयोगसमवाययोः... दर्शयिष्यमाणत्वात । 116

Page #114

PRAMANA ARTHAPATTI AND ABHĀVA
105
17 नन्वर्थग्रहणात्मको व्यापार एव चक्षुषः सन्निकर्षो योग्यता वा ।... न योग्यता
मात्रे एव विश्रम्य स्थातव्यम् । 117 18 यदपि--स्वरूपमात्रं दृष्टं च...भवति तदेव स्मरति । 117-118 19 अत्र रक्तपटा: प्राहुः प्रमेये सति चिन्तनम् ।
युक्त नाम प्रमाणस्य तदेव त्वतिदुर्लभम् ॥ 120 20 अभावो नाम प्रतीयमानो... न हि देशेन कालेन प्रतियोगिना सहाऽस्य
कश्चित सम्बन्धः । 120 : 21 ननु विशेषणविशेष्यभाव एव सम्वन्धः...काल्पनिक एवायं सम्वन्धः, न
वस्तुधर्मः । 121 22 प्रतियोगिना सह नतरामभावस्य सम्बन्धोऽसमानकालत्वात । ...अभ्युपगमे वा
घटतदभावयोः घटमुद्गरयोरिव वध्यघातकयोः साहचर्यमनुभूयेत । 121 23 घटाभावः किं कुर्वन् घटं विन्ध्यात ? अकिञ्चित्करस्य विरोधिवेऽति
प्रसक्तिः । 121 24 मुद्गरादयो घटाभावस्य हेतवो न भवितुमर्हन्ति, भावस्य स्वत एव भङगुर
त्वेन विनाशहेत्वनपेक्षत्वात । 121 25 तस्माद् विजातीयकपालादिसन्ततिजनने एव मुद्गरादिकारकव्यापारः ।... यदसौ
न पूर्ववदुपलभ्यते । 121 . . . 26 ननु पानि मुद्गरेण कपालानि जन्यन्ते सं एव घटाभावः । हन्त तर्हि कपाल
. स्फोटने संति घटाभावस्य विनष्टत्वाद् घटस्योन्मज्जनं प्राप्नोति । 122 27 किञ्चाकिञ्चित्कराणि कपालानि घटस्याभाव इति यद्युच्यते पटस्यापि
तथोच्येन् । 122 28 अपि चायमभावो भवनधर्मा वा स्यादभवनधर्मा वा ? भवनधर्मत्वे भावोऽसौ
भवेद् घटादिवत् । अभवनधर्मा तु यद्यभावोऽस्ति स नित्य एवासौ तर्हि भवेत् । स चायमेकपदार्थसम्बन्धी वा स्यात् सर्वपदार्थसम्बन्धी वा । तत्रकभावसम्बन्धित्वे न तस्य नियमकारणमुत्पश्यामः । 123
नन्वभावानभ्युपगमे.... अभावान्तरजन्या चेदनवस्था दुरुत्तरा । 123-124 30 नन्वभावप्रतिक्षेपे नञः किं वाच्यमुच्यताम् ।
नैव शब्दानुसारेण वाच्यस्थितिरुपेयते ।। बौद्धा: खलु वयं लोके सर्वत्र ख्यातकीर्तयः । विकल्पमात्रशब्दार्थपरिकल्पनपण्डिता: ॥ क्वचिन्नामपदप्राप्तवृत्तिना जन्यते नत्रा । निषेधपर्यु दस्तान्यविषयोल्लेखिनी मतिः ॥ क्वचित्त्वाख्यातसम्बन्धमुपेत्य विदधात्यसौ । तदुपात्तक्रियारम्भनिवृत्त्युल्लेखमात्रकम् ॥ 124

Page #115

INDIAN LOGIC ____31 ननु चानेन मार्गेण यद्यभावो निरस्यते ।
एकादशप्रकारेषाऽनुपलब्धिः क्व गच्छतु ।। 125 32 स्वभावानुपलब्धिः.... धूम त्रत्त्वादिति । 125 33 सत्यमेकादशविधाऽनुपलब्धिरिहेष्यते । ..
सा त्वसद्व्यवहारस्य हेतु भावसंविदः ॥ 125 34 नन्वनुपलब्धेः स्वभावहेतावन्तर्भाव उक्तः.. योग्यता च न ततोऽर्थान्तरमिति न
स्वभावहेतुत्वहानिः । 126 35 ननु योग्यता भावात्मिका, अनुपलब्धिस्तु अभावस्वभावेति कथमनन्तरत्वम् ?
नैतदेवम् । न ह्य पलब्धि रतिषेधात्मिकामभावस्वभावामनुपलब्धिमनुपलब्धिविदो
वदन्ति, किन्तु प्रतिषेधपयुदस्तवस्त्वन्तरोपलब्धिमेवार्थान्तरस्वभावामिति । 126 36 अत एवेदमपि न चोद्यम् अनुपलब्धेरभावात्मकत्वादनुपलब्ध्यन्तरपरिच्छेद्यत्वा.
दनवस्थेति, यस्माद् वस्त्वम्तरोपलम्भात्मिकाऽनुपलब्धिः स्वसंवेद्यैवेति । 126-127 37 नन्वनुपलब्धेरसद्व्यवहारसिद्धावदृश्यस्यापि तथात्व सिद्धयेत् । न, दृश्यत्व
विशेषणोपादानावुपलब्धिलक्षणप्राप्तस्यानपलब्धे रसद्व्यवहारः, न यस्य
कस्यचिदिति । तत्र-घटादे: पूर्वदृष्टस्य...दृश्यत्वयोग्यताऽयोगात् असत्त्वा। परिनिरचयः ॥ 127 38 तत्रापि त्वपिशाचोऽयं चैत्र इत्येवमादिषु ।
तादात्म्यप्रतिषेधे च दृश्यत्वं नोपयुज्यते ॥ पिशाचेतररूपो हि चैत्र: प्रत्यक्षगोचरः ।
ताप्यनिश्चये तस्य किं फलं. तद्विशेषणम् ॥ 127 39 अत्राभिधीयते । इदं तावत् . सकलप्राणिसाक्षिकं संवेदनद्वयमुपजायमानं दृष्टम् ___'इह घटोऽस्ति' 'इह नास्ति' इति ।... यत्त्वस्तिताज्ञान प्रमाणमितरदप्रमाण
मिति कथ्यते तदिच्छामात्रम् । 128 40 तत्र विकल्पमात्रसंवेदनमनालम्बनमात्मांशावलम्बनं वेत्यादि यदभिलप्यते तद्
नास्तिताज्ञान इवास्तिताज्ञानेऽपि समानम् । 128 41 अस्तीतिज्ञानसमानयोगक्षेमत्वे... तदतिरिक्त तु प्रतिभासमान घटविविक्ततेति
वा कथ्यतां घटाभाव इति वा, नात्र वस्तुनि विशेष: । 128-129 42 ननु 'घटो नास्ति' इति विकल्पमात्रमेतत् । न, दर्शनान्तरप्रवृत्तत्वेन विधि
विकल्पतुल्यत्वात् । यथाऽनुभवमुत्पत्त महन्ति किल कल्पना: ।
प्रतिषेधविकल्पस्तु न विध्यनुभवोचितः । 129 43 ननु नैव विकल्पानां वयं प्रमाणवादिनः ।
कामं विधिविकल्गनामपि मा भूत प्रमाणता ॥

Page #116

107
PRAMĀNA ARTHÍPATTI AND ABHAVA
प्रामाण्यं दर्शनानां चेत् तद्विकल्पानुसारतः ।
इहापि तेषामेवास्ति तद्विकल्पानुसारतः ।। 130 44 वस्तुप्राप्त्या विधिविकल्पानां प्रमाणव्यवहारः इति चेत्... एतच्च लाक्षणिक
विरोधमाचक्षाणर्भवद्भिरेवोपगतम् । 130 45 सुखदु खसमुत्पत्ति... निहूनुवीत सचेतनः ।। 130 45 ननु नाजनकमालम्बनं भवति ज्ञानस्य । अभावस्तु सकलोपाख्याविनिर्मुक्त.
स्वरूप इति न ज्ञानजननपट: । अतः कथं तदालम्बनम् । 131 47 सौगतानां तावन्न । किञ्चिज्जनकं वस्तु प्रतिभासते.... ज्ञानजननसमर्थ
इष्यते । 131 48 ननु भाववदेव ज्ञानजनक: सन्नभावो न भावाद् विशिष्यते । अहो......
प्रतिभापभेदो भवतीति भवताऽप्य भ्युपगतम् । 132 49 अर्थक्रियाऽन्यजन्या तु न भावेनापि जन्यते ॥ 132 50 तथा सम्बन्धाभावादिति यदुक्तं तत्र देशेन सह तावदभावस्य विशेषणविशेप्य
भावसम्बन्धः। स तु सम्बन्धान्तर मल इति भावेऽयं नियमः, नाभावे । 133 51 भावेऽप्येष न नियमः । न ह्य वं भवति यत् सम्बद्धं तद् विशेषणमेव, पादपीडिते
शिरसि वा धार्यमाणे दण्डे दण्डीति प्रत्ययानुत्पादात । नाप्येवं यद् विशेषणं
तत् सम्बद्धमेवेति, समवायस्य सत्यपि विशेषणत्वे सम्बन्धान्तराभावात । 133 52 तस्मात् सम्बन्धान्तररहितोऽपि प्रतिबन्ध इव वाच्यवाचकभाव इव विशेषण
विशेष्यभावः स्वतन्त्र एव सम्वन्धस्तथाप्रतीतेरवधार्यते । 133 53 उभयोरुभयात्मकत्वात् कदाचित् कस्यचित् तथा प्रतिभासात् पुरुषेच्छानुवर्तनेन
व्यत्ययप्रत्ययसत्त्वेऽपि न दोषः । 133 54 तस्माद् विशेषणविशेष्यभाव एव सम्बन्धो देशेन भूतलादिना सहाभावस्य ।
एवं कालेनापि सह स एव वेदितव्यः । 133 55 क्रियया कर्ते स्थया का गमनादिकया कर्मस्थया वा भेदनादिकया सह संयोगा
द्यमावेऽपि विशेषणविशेष्यभाव एव सम्बन्धः, तद्वद् अभावस्यापि भविष्य.
तीति । 133 56 प्रतियोगिना तु सह विरोधोऽस्य सम्बन्धः । अयमेव च विरोधार्थः यदेकत्रो
भयोरसमावेशः । 133 57 यत्त भवनधर्मा अभवनधर्मा वेति विकल्पितम्, तत्र भवनधर्मेवाभावोऽभ्युप
गम्यते । 134 58 भवनधर्मत्वेऽपि चाभावो न भावान्न भिद्यते, प्रतिमासभेदस्य रूपरसादिवदुप
दशितत्वात् । भवनधर्मत्वं चास्य हेत्वन्धयव्यतिरेकित्वाद् भवति । 134

Page #117

108
INDIAN LOGIC
59 घटो हि मृत्पिण्डदण्दादीनिव जन्मनि विनाशंऽपि मुद्गरादीननुवर्तते हेतून् । 134 60 विजातीयसन्ततिजननपक्षेऽपि सदृशसन्तानजनिकाया: शक्तेरभावः क्रियते एव,
अन्यथा मुद्गराद्युपनिपातेऽपि विजातीयेव सजातीयसन्ततिरपि जायेत । 134 61 सजातीयविजातीयोभयसन्ततिजननशक्तियुक्तो घट इति चेद् पूर्वमपि कपाल
सन्ततिजनन, तद्योगेऽपि वा सति घटसन्ततिजननमनियमेन दृश्येते ति । 134-135 विजातीयक्षणोत्पादनस्वभावे च घटे मद्गरादेवैयर्थ्यमेव स्यात् । तदुत्पादस्वभावे हि न किञ्चिन्मुद्गरादिना । ... अतदुत्पादकत्वेऽपि न किञ्चिन्मुद्गरादिना ॥ मुद्गरोपनिपाताच्च यद्युत्पन्नं क्षणान्तरम् ।
घटक्षणस्य किं वृत्तं येन नाभाति पूर्ववत् ।। 135 63 नन्वस्याभवनं वृत्तं स एवार्थोऽयमुच्यते ।
घना किमपराद्ध व: किं वाऽप्युपकृतं ल्युटा ।। 135 64 ननूक्त न तस्य किञ्चिद् भवति, न भवत्येव केवलम् । तदयुक्तम्, यदसौ
न भवति स एवास्याभाव: । 136. 65 ननु स न, न तु तस्याभावः । मैत्रम्, स नेतिशब्दयोर्ज्ञानयोश्च विषयभेदात् । . स इति ज्ञानस्य स्मर्यमाणो घटादिविषयः, नेति तु ज्ञानस्याभावो
भूमिः । 136 66 या चेयमेकादश... क्षणभङ्गभङ्गे दूषयिष्यते । 136-137 67 तस्मादित्थमभावस्य प्रमेयत्वोपपादनात् ।।
न ह्यसद्व्यवहाराय कल्पन्तेऽन पलब्धयः ।। न स्वभावानुमाने च तदन्तर्भावसम्भवः ।
मेयं पृथगभावाख्य ममूषामुपपादितम् ।। 136 68 कारणानुपलब्ध्यादेर्बाढमस्त्यनुमानता ।
स्वभावानुपलब्धिस्तु प्रत्यक्षमिति साधितम् ।। 136 69 यैस्तु मीमांसकै: सद्भिरभावो नाभ्युपेयते ।
प्रमादेनामुना तेषां वयमप्यद्य लज्जिता: ।। 137 70 घटो हि न प्रतीयते... सर्वदाऽनुपलब्धोऽपि न पिशाचः खपुष्पवत् । 137 71 अनिष्यमाणे चाभावे भावानां प्रतियोगिनि ।
नित्यतैषां प्रसज्येत न ह्यते क्षणिकास्तव ॥ 138 72 मद्गरादेच कि कार्य कपाटपटलीति चेत् ।
घटस्ता विनष्टत्वात् स्वकार्य न करीति किम् ॥ 138 73 विकल्पविषया: शब्दा यथा शौद्धोदने हे ।
गीयन्ते भवता नैमिति नञ वाच्यमुच्यताम् ॥ 139 .

Page #118

APPENDIX ON THE PROBLEMS OF KNOWLEDGE
IN GENERAL
DO
The question as to how we can know reality is of the utmost importance. Are there any means with whose help we can know reality ? If there are, how many are they and on what ground can we consider them to be valid ? In what way can we know knowledge itself and especially its validity (prāmān ya) ? These are some of the problems regarding knowledge. We present in brief the various views adopted by the different systems of Indian philosophy on the problems of knowledge in general.
Definition of valid knowledge (pramāņa = pramā) : Kanāda considers only that cognition to be valid whose cause is free from defects.' Vätsyāyana's word for cognition is upalabdhi and - he defines pramana as the means of upalubdhi ? But he is not unmindful of the fact that not every cognition but only that which presents an object, as it is, is valid (arthavat pramānam). Vācaspati explains the word 'arthavat' as 'non-contradictory to the nature of the object concerned' (arthāvyabhicari). Vācaspati clearly explains what he means by the non-contradictory character of valid knowlenge. 8 He puts this characteristic in the very definition of valid knowledge. The later Naiyāyikas follow him and observe that the cognition that presents an object with a character which it really has is valid Nor would the Naiyayikas hesitate to regard the coherence between the cognitive and conative activities as one of the characteristics of valid knowledge. 5 Thus with the Naiyāyikas the presentativeness, the non-contradictoriness (i, e, the correspondence between a cognition and its object) and the coherence between the cognitive and the conative activities are the essential defining characteristics of valid cognition The Prābhākaras define valid knowledge as immediate experience (anubhūti).. The Bhättas, under the influence of the Buddhists, hold that valid cognition invariably pertains to a novel object. 7 They follow Kanāda when they maintain that valid cognition is that cognition which originates from a non-defective cause. It was perhaps Dinnāga who for the first time pointed out that valid

Page #119

110
INDIAN LOGIT
cognition is self-revelatory. In addition, he observed that valid cognition should represent the form of the object concerned (visayākāra).' Dharmakirti defines true knowledge as harmonious or nondiscrepant (avisaṁvādi) in the sense that there is no conflict between the cognition of an object and the practical activity meant to obtain it. 10 Some may point out that according to Buddhism things being momentary an object indicated (apprehe. nded) by a piece of cognition and an object attained (reached or determined) by us in the wake of this cognition could never be the same; thus there would arise the impossibility of there being a harmony between the cognitive and conative activities and consequently no knowledge would be considered to be valid. Dharmottara solves the difficulty by suggesting that while defining valid knowledge Dharmakirti has kept before his eyes the object-cantinuum and not the momentary members of this continuum. He has tackled the problem of valid cognition from the empirical or worldly viewpoint that accepts a thing as durable. Moreover, for Dharmakirti valid cognition is a new cognition, the cognition of an object not yet cognised. 12 It anight be urged that on this definition even the cognition of the universal (sāmânyavijnana) arising in the wake of the cognition of the unique particular would become valid because the former cognises an object not yet cognised by a previous cognition 13 But Dharmakirti in this connection declares that what he means is that the cognition grasping the ungrasped unique particularit is valid For, by means of valid knowledge people seek to acquire unique particulars only, because none but they lead to successful purposive activity. 15 Inasmuch as things, according to Buddhism, are momentary, two cognitions can never arise with regard to one and the same object. And so, to be consistent with the prime doctrine of momentarism Dharmakirti deems it proper to put down 'grasping-the-hitherto-ungrasped-object' as a differentiating mark of valid cognition. In the Jaina tradition Siddhasena Divākara and Āc. Samantabhadra define valid cognition by pointing out that it is its nature to reveal itself as well as its object. 16 Akalanka, although he accepts this as one of the defining characteristics of valid cognition 17 considers harmory or

Page #120

ON THE PROBLEMS OF KNOWLEDGE
111
non-discrepancy (avisamvada) to be the true mark of valid cognition. 18 For him non-discrepancy of cognition means its not being sublated by other valid cognitions as also its self consistence." By non-discrepancy he also means the correspondence of cogni. tion with the nature of its object..Sometimes he also means by non-discrepancy the coherence between the cognitive and conative activities. In addition to non-discrepancy, definiteness or determinateness is regarded by him as one of the essential characteristics of valid cognition.?! He observes that even non-discrepancy of cognition is impossible without its possessing a determinate nature. 2 He has also introduced in his definition of valid cognition the adjectival phrase - 'grasping-the-hitherto-ungrasped' in order to qualify valid cognition !! The influence of Dharmakirti is evident here. It might be said that for the Buddhists who are momentarists it is alright to consider valid cognition to be a cognition pertaining to quite a new object. But for the Jainas reality is relatively permanent. Hence it is not proper for Akalanka to insert the adjectival phrase 'pertaining to a novel object in his definition of valid cognition. Akalanka replies that reality, since it is relatively permanen', possesses innumerable modes. Hence even if two or more cognitions could operate in relation to one and the same thing, they would always determine the mode or an aspect of it. not determined by the other. So, for us, says Akalanka, the phrase 'grasping-the-hitherto-ungrasped' means 'determining-thehitherto-undetermined-mode."?4 Akalanka seems to relax this condition in the case of memory.25 Thus he is not serious about this condition. So, it ultimately boils down to this that the essential characteristics of valid cognition, according to Akalanka, are its nondiscrepancy, its ability to enable us to attain the object capable of purposive. activity, and its determinate nature. It is interesting to note that to be consistent with the doctrine of non-absolutism Akalanka considers all empirical cognitions to be valid as well as invalid. No empirical cognition is absolutely valid or absolutely invalid. Yet we call a cognition valid if it by far corresponds with the concerned external object and we call it invalid if it is mostly not in consonance with the form of the concerned external object.26 The realisation that the powers of the sense-organs are limited seems to have led Akalanka to formulate such a view.

Page #121

112
INDIAN LOGIC
But Akalanka would not deny the absolute validity of the highest transcendental perception called Keyala-jñāna which requires no media of sense-organs and mind to grasp its object. This suggests that the theory of non-absolutism is not to be applied without discrimination. For if it were so applied even the perfect knowledge of an onniscient being would have to be regarded as partly valid and partly invalid. But here the operation of nonabsolutism ceases, Hence, it is said that even Anekanta itself is anekānta, that is, in certain spheres it operates and in certain others it does not.37
Nature of the source of valid knowledge : We have discussed the definitions of valid cognition. But what is the instrument or source of valid cognition ? It is said by Våtsyāyana that the cause of valid cognition (upalabdhi-hetu) is its instrument. But can any cause of such a cognitior be its instrument ? Not any cause but the one which is the most efficient (karana) is its instrument. But how can we know that a particular cause out of many is the most efficient ? Some Naiyayikas, consider senseorgans to be the instrument of valid perceptual cognition. From this it becomes clear that for them the thing possessed of a function (vyāpāravat) is the most efficient cause. Function here means the action which is immediately and 'invariably followed by the effect concerned. Some other Naiyayikas consider the sense-object contact (sannikarşa) to be the instrument of valid perceptual cognition. So, for them the function itself is the efficient cause. For Jayanta Bhatta neither the thing possessed of a function nor this function itself is the efficient cause. He emphatically holds that it is the aggregate (samagri) of all conditions- physical as well as psychological-that is the most efficieat cause of a valid cognition.". The aggregate is devoid of a function.30 It is the most efficient in comparison to the particular factors (viz. subject, object sense-organ etc.) included in it.3 1 It is noteworthy that Kumärila, in his Ślokavārtika, has for the first time hinted at this view while enumerating all the possible views as regards the instrument of knowledge. 33
As for the question of identity or difference between the resultant cognition and its instrument, the Nyāya--Vaigesikas consider the two to be absolutely different. This view of theirs

Page #122

ON THE PROBLEMS OF KNOWLEDGE
113
seems to be a corollary of their fundamental position according to which an effect is quite different from its cause (arambhavada). One thing to be noted here is that they regard each stage in the process of cognition as an instrument as well as a resultant cognition-an instrument with respect to the succeeding stage that is generated by it and a resultant cognition with respect to the preceding stage whose result it is. '
Dharmakirti maintains that nothing but cognition (jñana) deserves to be called an instrument of valid cognition because it is the most efficient cause required to generate valid cognition. This is so for two reasons: (i) Sense-organs being non-conscious, it is impossible for them to generate cognition. (ii) It is mainly cognition that can enable us to attain the desirable and to avoid
e undesirable. 34 From this it can be deduced that out of the four causal conditions (pratyaya) it is the samanantara pratyaya (the immediately preceding cognition-moment) that is considered by him to be the main or the most efficient cause of valid cognition. Here by the word pramana he means the main or the most efficient cause required te generate the resultant cognition. But elsewhere he goes even a step further and considers the formal similarity obtaining between a piece of valid cognition and its object to be the instrument of this piece of valid knowledge. Thus he observes that because a particular piece of knowledge is determined to be (say) 'knowledge of the blue' or 'knowledge of the yellow' on the basis of the form it bears, it is this form that should be regarded as a pramāna (an instrument).' • Here he seems to have given up the idea of calling the main or the most efficient cause of a particular piece of valid cognition its pramana fïts instrument). In its stead he now deems it quite proper to call the form that determines a particular piece of knowledge to be knowledge of the blue' or 'knowledge of the yellow' its pramāna (its instrument). And a particular piece of knowledge and its form being absolutely identical, he regards the resultant cognition and its instrument as identical. As a Vijñānavadin he observes that the capacity of cognition to cognise itself is the instrument and its actual cognition of itself (svasanvedana) is the resultant cognition.".

Page #123

INDIAN LOGIC
Even Akalanka agrees with Dharmakirti in so far as he holds that it is a cognition that should be regarded as pramāna (instrument). The reasons why he upholds this view are the same as those advanced by Dharmakirti. 37 But this view of his means that the quality called knowledge is the main or the most efficient cause of a particular mode of this quality knowledge. Here by pramāna he means the main or the most efficient cause of the resultant coġ. nition. And because particular piece of valid cognition is a mode of the quality knowledge (a quality which belongs to the substance soul), the two are regarded by him as identical as well as different 38 It is interesting to note that Akalařka for the first time takes clear note of and endorses the relativistic Nyāya. Vaiśéşika position according to which the intermediary links in the causal chain of a cognitive process are, each of them, a pramāña as well as an effect of pramāna.89 Later on, a Jain logician like Hemacandra goes one step further and observes that because knowledge is determined to be knowledge of the blue' or knowledge of the yellow' on the basis of its mode it is this mode that should be regarded as the pramana and the knowledge as a whole of that particular time as the resultant cognition. Here the word 'pramana' means the determinant of a particular piece of valid cognition. The influence of Dharmakirti is evident here. Ac. Hemacandra follows Dharmakirti in positing the relation of the determinant and the determined (vyavasthapya-vyavasthảpakubhāva) between the instrument and the resultant cognition. But prior to Ac. Hemacandra, the Jaina logicians have criticised Dharmakirti for having done so.
How do we know knowledge ? : The Buddhists, be they realists or idealists, consider cognition to be self-revelatory.* 1 The Jainas, the Prābhākaras: and the Vedāntins agree with the Buddhists: but the Bhattas and the Naiyāyikas uphold some peculiar views. According to the Bhattas a cognition is not only pot self-revelatory but is not even perceptible. It is inferred from the result of cógnition, that is, from the cognisedness or manifestness (iñatard) produced by cognition in the object cognised. For example, when we know a jar we have an apprehension that the jar is cognised by us; and from this cognised oess of the object we infer the existence of cognition; a comption is inferred from the cognised

Page #124

OF THE PROBLEMS OF KNOWLRDOB
115
aess of its object. 43 - The Naiyāyikas are of the opinion that tho. agh every cognition is perceptible it is perceived by a cognition other than itself which is called 'after-cognition' (anuvyayasaya)." Dharmakirti and Akalanka both criticise this peculiar Nyaya view.43 They observe that if cognition is not self-revelatory but requires another cognition to reveal itself, it would involve us in an infinite regress. Akalanka has refuted the Bhātta view also...
Thus all philosophers except the Bbāta and the Nyāya-Vaiseşikas “are unanimous in holding that cognition as such is self-perceptible (syaprakasa), that is, that all cognition, whether acquired through perception (pratyakşa), inference (anumāna), verbal testimony (sabda) or memory (smrti), notices its own nature by way of direct observation ((sākṣatkara) while it is called 'inferential," 'verbal,' 'mnemic' etc. owing to the nature of the object grasped (grālıya). In other words, even though differing as regards their respective generating conditions (sāmagri) and pertaining to objects that are differently characterised ‘as capable of being perceived'. ‘capable of being inferred', 'capable of being recalled' etc., the various types of cognition, like perception, inference, memory etc. are, all of them, perceptually cognisant of their own nature (i. e. of themselves)."47
How do we know the validity of knowledge ?: For the Bhagas the validity of cognition is self-evident. . Its invalidity is known only when it is contradicted by some other strong cognition.c. The Naiyāyikas maintain that neither the validity nor invalidity of cognition is self-evident. The two are inferred from its capacity or non-capacity to produce successful activity.50 The extant Sankhya texts give no indication as to what stand it takes on the question under consideration; but the statements of its critics suggest that according to the Sankhyas both the validity and invalidity of cognition are self-evident.51 Dharmakirti holds that cognition is alone selfcognised. Its validity is known through the subsequent successful activity.59 Manoratha commenting on this observes that the validity of cognition is self-evident in the case of repeated acquaintance (abhjāsa) but that in the case of first acquaintance (anabhyasa) it is known through the subsequent successful activity (arthakrivdjñānena).53 In the Pramāṇavartika or in the Manoratha nothing is said regarding the question as to how one knows the

Page #125

116
INDIAN LOGIC
invalidity of cognition. Śäntarakṣita maintains that both the validity and invalidity of cognition are self-evident in the case of repeated acquaintance while they are known through subsequent successful volitional experiences in the case of first acquaintance. This view is termed by him the aniyamapakşa.54 Th. Stcherbatsky". and Prof. S. C. Chatterjee" record the Buddhist view which is quite different from the one given by śāntarakṣita. According to this view the invalidity of cognition is self-evident while its Validity is known by the subsequent successful activity. Both these scholars seem to have before them the Sarvadarganasangraha where this view is ascribed to the Buddhists.57 May be this view. was held by a section of the Buddhist philosophers. Or, may be it is a misrepresentation of the Buddhist view on the part of the author of the Sarvadarganasangraha.
It seems that Akālaska has bodily taken, of course with a slight change, a quarter of a verse - prāmān ya vyavahäräddhi 68 from the Pramānavārtika. Akalanka, with Dharmakirti, holds that validity of cognition is known through subsequent successful active ities. Like Dharmakurti, he says nothing regarding the question as to how the invalidity of cognition is known. The later Jaina logicians maintain that both the validity and invalidity of cognition are self-evident in the case of repeated acquintance while they are known through subsequent successful activities in the case of first acquaintance.59 Thus the Jaina view exactly'tallies with the Buddhist view recorded by śāntarakṣita.
Number of the sources of knowledge accepted by the different systems of Indian philosophy : In the West logicians generally recognise only two sources of knowledge - perception and inference. But Indian philosophy presents a variety of views on the question, The Carvākas admit only one source of valid knowledge viz. per. ception. The Buddhists and the Vaigeşikas recognise only two such sources-viz. perception and inference. To these the Sānkhyas add a third one-viz, authority or verbal testimony. The Naiyāyikas admit a fourth way of knowing - viz. analogy (upamana) - in addition to these three. The Prābhākaras, again, add to these four sources a fifth one – viz, implication (artha patti). The Bhātas and monistic Vedāntins, however, recognise six sources of knowledgę, adding non-cog. nition (abhava-anupalabdhi) to the five already mentioned. The

Page #126

ON THE PROBLEMS OF KNOWLEDGE
117
Paurānikas, add two more - viz. sambhava (probability) and aitihya (tradition)- to those six. In the Maạimekhalai it is said that according to Vedavyāsa, Krtakoji and Jaimini there are ten sources of knowledge. Here we get two new designations, namely, svabhāva and pariseşa.. These two independent pramānas recognised by these authors seem to be what others have treated as two particular types of anumāna-viz. syabhāyānumāna and seşayat anumana. Th. Stcherbatsky notes that the followers of Caraka increase the number of the sources of knowledge upto eleven. 61 The Jaina logicians accept only two sources of knowledge-viz. direct and indirect. 62
Principles that determine the different numbers of the types of the sources of koowledge : Here the question naturally arises as to what are the different principles that determine the different numbers of the types of the sources of knowledge. Dinnāga, Dharmakirti and their followers declare that as many are the types of the sources of knowledge as are the types of the objects of knowledge.63 For these Buddhists there are only two types of objects viz. the unique particular (svalaksana) and the universal (sāmānyalaksana). The Mimārsakās seem to hold that not on the types of objects but also the types of the causal aggregates of knowledge determine the number of the types of the sources of knowledge 64 To this position the Naiyāyikas add that the types of the results of knowledge also determine the number of the types of the sources of knowledge.65 The Jainas are of the opinion that it is only the different natures of knowledge that determine the number of the types of the sources of knowledge. The knowledge possesses either of the two natures-vividness and blurredness. Hence even the sources of knowledge are two -- direct and indirect. 66
Rejection or inclusion of the sources not independently accepted : Those who accept a lesser number of the types of the sources of knowledge than the one accepted by others will have to answer two questions : (i) as to whether for them those other types of sources are no sources at all and (ii) if they are sources but not independent ones they are to be brought under which accepted type.
For the Cārvākas perception alone is an independent source of knowledge. All other sources are no sources at all. The Budd.

Page #127

118
INDIAN LOGIC
bist logicians consider verbal testimony (sabda) to be a form of inference. As for analogy (upamāna) they identify it with memory and memory heing not a source of valid knowledge according to them, they do not at all regard upamāna as a source of knowledge. 6 7 Again, implication: (arthapatti) and non-cognition (anupalabdhi) are reduced to inference by them. The Vaišeşikas also recognise only two indepedent sources of knowledge-viz. perception and inference. They reduce analogy (upamāna), implication and verbal testimony to inference. They consider even non-cognition to be a case of inference. 9 The Sānkhyas reduce analogy (upamāna) either to perception or to verbal testimony.?0 Again, according to them implication is a form of inference.71 And they regard non-cognition as a form of perception.". The Naiyāyikas reduce implication to inference73 and non-cognition to perception.74 The Prābhākaras too regard non-cognition as a case of perception.75 For the Jainas inference and testimony are two species of the indirect source. Again, according to them analogy (upamāna) is a form of recognition (pratyabhijña)?& which is a species of the indirect source of knowledge. Similarly, they consider cogitation (tarka) to be one
f the species of the indirect source of knowledge.?? As for noncognition and implication they are both reduced to inference by
them.
Pramāņa-Samplava Vs. Pramāņa-Viplava : There arises the question as to whether more than one organs of knowledge operate with regard to one and the same object or each organ has its own specific object. As the Buddhists uphold the doctrine of momentarism and reject the substance as unreal, there is no possibility, on their view, of object being grasped even by two perceptions. This being the case no question arises of there taking place a co-operation of two quite different organs of knowledge-perception and inference--in the cognition of one and the same object. Again, they hold that perception and inference have their own special fields of action inasmuch as the former grasps the particulars only and tbe latter universals only."And there is no third type of object that might be supposed to be common to both. So, perception can never grasp what is grasped by inference. The co-operation of different organs of our knowledge in - the cognition of one and the same object is impossible.

Page #128

ON THE PROBLEMS OF KNOWLEDGE
119
As against this none of those who repudiated inomentarism and believed in the reality of the substance could rule out the possibility of the co-operation of the different organs of knowledge in the cognition of one and the same object (pramana -sanplaya). Thus Gautama, the author of the Nyāyasūtra, seems to concede the possibility of pramāna-samplava. This is suggested by the term pramanatah used in the sūtra pramanatuś ca arthapratipatteh. 7, Vātsyāyana clearly states that there are objects that could be grasped by all the organs of knowledge while there are other objects that could be grasped by some one organ only. As instances of the objects of the first type are cited Atman and fire; they are cognised by the verbal authority, inference and perception successively. Then he gives instances of the objects in whose case only one organ can operate. The knowledge of Heaven could be acquired through verbal testimony only; the knowledge of clouds, after having heard the rumbling sound could be had through inference only and the knowledge of one's own hand could be had through perception only. 8° Uddyotakara too accepts both pramāna-vyavastha and pramana-samplava. To give an illustration, he says that only visual sense organ grasps the quality colour, only auditory sense organ grasps the quality sound and so on yet all the sense-organs grasp the Universal Being and the Universal Quality: Again he observes that though only visual sense organ cognises colour and only tactual organ cognises touch, yet both these organs cognise the solid body pot. 81
Someone might urge that if all the organs were to grasp one and the same object then there would be no need of all these organs except one, Uddyotakara replies that though all organs cooperate in the cognition of one and the same object, they grasp this object differently, that is, in their own way; and what is to be borne in mind is that even if all the organs of knowledge operate in the cognition of the same object not one of them does so with reference to that entire object. 89
The Jainas too accept both pramāna-samplava and pramānaviplava. They accept momentarism from the point of view of modes. From this point of view a thing changes perpetually and hence no source of knowledge grasps what is grapsed by another

Page #129

120
INDIAN LOGIC
source. Thus according to the Jainas pramāna-viplava is self-evident. But they are not absolutists. They give equal importance to the point of view of substance. So, the Jainas accept even pramana-Samh plava. From the point of view of substance things are permanent. Hence it is possible for several different sources of knowledge to co-operate in the cognition of one and the same object. But to the Jainas, pramāna-samplaya is acceptable only in case a newly utilised source of knowledge adds something to the previously acquired knowledge of the object concerned. To illustrate, having known that there is fire there on the mountain through the statement of a passerby, if a person desires to know the same fire through inference he can do so, but the distinction of this inferential cognition of fire from the verbal cognition of it would be that in the latter case the person knows merely the general nature of fire while in the former case he knows it as connected with smoke. And if this person wants to know this fire through perception after having known it through inference, he may go to the place where the fire is actually present. The special feature of this perceptual cognition would be that the person grasps the specific characteristic of that fire viz, whether it is produced by hay or leaves etc. Thus even if these so many sources of knowledge co-operate in the coghition of one and the same thing fire each of them has its special sphere; this shows that pramāna-samplava and pramāna-viplava are not mutually contradictory as it would at first sight seem.83
Thus we finish our rapid survey of the different views adopted by the different systems of Indian Philosophy.

Page #130

References 1 अदुष्टं विद्या । वैशेषिकसूत्र 9.2.12 2 उपलब्धिसाधनानि प्रमाणानि । न्यायभाष्य 1.3 3 तथा हि प्रमाणमर्थवदिति नित्ययोगे मतुप् । नित्यता च अव्यभिचारिता ।
तेन अव्यभिचारीत्यर्थः । इयमेव चाव्यभिचारिता यद् देशकालान्तरावस्थान्तरा विसंवादोऽर्थस्वरूपप्रकारयोस्तदुपदर्शितयोः । न्यायवार्तिकतात्पर्यटीका
(काशी संस्कृत सिरिझ) पृ. 5 4 उपलब्धिमात्रस्थाव्यिभिचारिणः....प्रमाशब्देनाभिधानात् । न्यायवार्तिकतात्पर्य
टीका पु. 21 5 प्रमाणतोऽर्थप्रतिपत्तो प्रवृत्तिसामयाद् अर्थवत् प्रमाणम् । न्यायभाष्य पृ. 1 6 अनुभूतिश्च नः प्रमाणम् । बृहती 1.1.5 7 सर्वस्यानुपलब्धेऽर्थे प्रामाण्यम्......। श्लोकवार्तिक
___. (मद्रास युनि• संस्करण), पृ. 185 अनधिगतार्थाधिगन्त प्रमाणमिति भाट्टमीमांसकाः प्राहुः । सिद्धान्तचन्द्रोदय, पृ. 20 एतच्च विशेषणत्रयमुपादानेन सूत्रकारेण कारणदोषबाधकज्ञानरहितमगृहीतप्राहि ज्ञानं प्रमाणमिति प्रमाणलक्षणं सूचितम् । शास्त्रदीपिका (निर्णयसागर
आवृत्ति) पृ. 45 १ स्वसंवित्तिः फलं चात्र तद्रूपाद् अर्थनिश्चयः ।
विषयाकार एवास्य प्रमाणं तेन मीयते ।। प्रमाणसमुच्चय 1.10 10 प्रमाणमविसंवादि ज्ञानमाक्रियास्थितिः ।
अविसंवादनम्..........॥ प्रमाणवार्तिक 1.3 11 किन्तु क्षणापेक्षया .न प्रामाण्यलक्षणमुच्यते अपि तु सन्तानापेक्षया । न्यायः ।
बिन्दुटिप्पणी, पृ. 11 12 अज्ञातार्थप्रकाशो वा... । प्रमाणवार्तिक, 1.7
...स्वरूपाधिगतेः ॥ प्राप्तं सामान्यविज्ञानं [प्रमाणमिति शेषः] । प्रमाणवार्तिक, 178 Bracked portion is Vrtti.
...अविज्ञाते स्वलक्षणे । यज्ज्ञानमित्यभिप्रायात्....॥ प्रमाणवार्तिक, 1.8 . 15 स्वलक्षणविचारतः...॥ प्रमाणवार्तिक 1.8
अर्थक्रियार्थिभिः स्वलक्षणमेव प्रमाणेन अन्विष्यते तस्यैव अर्थक्रियासाधनत्वात् । प्रमाणवातिकवृत्ति 1.8

Page #131

122
INDIAN LOGIC
16 प्रमाणं स्वपराभासि ज्ञानं बाधविवजितम् । न्यायावतार, 1। स्वपरावभासक
यथा प्रमाणं भुवि बुद्धिलक्षणम् । बृहत् स्वयंभूस्तोत्र, 63 17 तदुभयात्मार्थज्ञानं प्रमाणम् । अकलङ्कग्रन्थत्रय (अकत्रय) सिंघी जैन सिरिश,
क्रमाङ्क 12, पृ. 17 18 अविसंवादकं प्रमाणम् .....। अकत्रय पृ० १ 19 प्रमाणान्तराबाधनं पूर्वापराविरोधश्च अविसंवादः । अकत्रय, पृ. 14. 20 तिमिराद्य पप्लवज्ञानं चन्द्रादावविसंवादकं प्रमाण यथा तत्सङ्ख्यादी विसंवादक
त्वादप्रमाणम्......। अकत्रय, पृ० 8 21 व्यवसायात्मकं ज्ञानमात्मार्थग्राहकं मतम् ।
ग्रहणं निर्णयस्तेन मुख्यं प्रामाण्यमश्नुते ॥ अकत्रय, पृ. 20 22 अविसंवादकत्वं च निर्णयायत्तम् । अकत्रय, पृ. 20
ततो व्यवसाय एवाविसंवादनियमोऽधिगमश्च निश्चेतव्यः तत्रैव तद्भावात्
तद्वशादेव तत्प्रतिष्ठानात् । सिद्धिविनिश्चयवृत्ति, पृ.० 114 . 23 प्रमाणमविसंवादि ज्ञानमनधिगतार्थाधिगमलक्षणत्वात् । अष्टशती (निर्णय -
सागर) पृ० 175 24 अनधिगतार्थांधिगन्त विज्ञानं प्रमाणमित्यपि केवलमनिर्णीतार्थनिर्णीतिरमिधीयते
...। सिद्धिविनिश्चयवृत्ति, पृ० 13 25 सिद्धिविनिश्चयवृत्ति, पृ. 175 26 येनाकारेण तत्त्वपरिच्छेदस्तदपेक्षया प्रामाण्यमिति । तेन प्रत्यक्षतदाभासयोरपि
प्रायशः सङ्कीर्णप्रामाण्येतरस्थितिरुन्नेतव्या, प्रसिदानुपहतेन्द्रियदृष्टेरपि चन्द्रार्कादिषु देशप्रत्यासत्याचभूताकारावभासनात् , तथोपहताक्षादेरपि सङ्ख्यादिविसंवादेऽपि चन्द्रादिस्वभावतत्त्वोपलम्भात् । तत्प्रकर्षापेक्षया न्यपदेशब्यवस्था
गन्धद्रव्यादिवत् । अष्टशती, पृ० 276 27 अनेकान्तोऽप्यनेकान्तः.......। स्वयम्भूस्तोत्र, 103 28 उपलब्धिसाधनानि प्रमाणानीति.......। न्यायभाष्य, 1.1.3 29 तस्मात्......बोधाबोधस्वभावा सामग्री प्रमाणमिति युक्तम् । न्यायमन्जरी
(काशी संस्कृत सिरिझ), पृ. 14 30 न्यायमञ्जरी (बांगला), भाग 1, पृ. 115 31 यत् तु किमपेक्षं सामग्रयाः करणत्वमिति तदन्तर्गतकारकापेक्षमिति ब्रूमः...।
न्यायमञ्जरी, पृ० 13 32 यद्वेन्द्रियं प्रमाणं स्यात् तस्य वार्थेन सङ्गतिः ।
मनसो वेन्द्रियर्योग आत्मना सर्व एव ना ॥ लोकवार्तिक, p.134

Page #132

ON THE PROBLEMS OF KNOWLEDGE
123.
33 यदा सन्निकर्षस्तदा ज्ञानं प्रमितिः, यदा ज्ञानं तदा हानोपादानोपेक्षाबुद्धयः
फलम् । न्यायभाष्य, 1.1.3 34 .......धीप्रमाणता ।
प्रवृत्तेस्तत्प्रधानत्वात् हेयोपादेयवस्तुनि ॥ प्रमाणवातिक, 1.5 कस्मात् पुनधियः प्रमाणतेष्यते नेन्द्रियादेः ? हेयोपादेयवस्तुविषयायाः प्रवृत्तोस्तत्प्रधानत्वात् धिय एव प्रामाण्यम् । न हीन्द्रियमस्तीत्येव प्रवृत्ति: । कि तहि ? ज्ञानसद्भावात् । साधकतमं च प्रमाणम् , तस्याव्यवहितव्यापारत्वात् । प्रमाणवातिकवृत्ति, 1.5 ज्ञानं प्रमाणं नाज्ञानमिन्द्रियार्थसन्निकर्षादि । प्रमाणवातिकवृत्ति 1.3
अर्थसारूप्यमस्य प्रमाणम् । तद्वशादर्थप्रतीतिसिद्धेरिति । न्यायबिन्दु 1.20-21 36 इति सा योग्यता मानम्..... फलं स्ववित् । प्रमाणवार्तिक, 2.366
सन्निकर्षादेरज्ञानस्य प्रामाण्यमनुपपन्नम्......। अकत्रय, पृ०1। हिताहिताप्ति
निमुक्तिक्षमम्......। अकत्रय, पृ० 29 38 तदा हि करणस्य क्रियायाश्च कथञ्चित् एकत्वं प्रदीपतमोविगमवत् , नानात्वं
च परश्वादिवत् । अष्टशती, पृ० 284 39 पूर्वपूर्वप्रमाणत्वं फलं स्याद् उत्तरोत्तरम् । अकत्रय, पृ. 3 40 प्रमाणफलयोरैक्ये सदसस्पक्षभावी दोषः स्यात् , नासत: करणत्वं, न सतः
फलत्वम् । सत्यम् , अस्त्ययं दोषो जन्मनि, न व्यवस्थायाम् । प्रमाणमीमांसा (सिंघी. जैन सिरिझ), प०-29 सर्वचित्तचैत्तानामात्मवेदनं स्ववेदनम् । न्यायबिन्दु 1.11 सर्वविज्ञान हेतूस्था मिती मातरि च प्रमा । साक्षात्कत त्वसामान्यात प्रत्यक्षत्वेन सम्मता ॥ .
. . प्रकरणपश्चिका (चौखम्बा सं० सि०) . 56 43 शास्त्रदीपिका (काशी, वि.सं. 1964), पृ. 202 44 तस्मात् ज्ञानान्तरसंवेद्यं संवेदनं वेद्यत्वात् घटादिवत् ।।
व्योमवती ( चौखम्बा सं० सि.), पृ० 529 __ . मनोग्राह्य सुखं दुःखमिच्छा द्वेषो मतिः कृतिः । कारिकावली, 57 45 अकत्रय, पृ. 32; प्रमाणवार्तिक, 2,437-441
अकत्रय, पृ. 32 . Advanced Studies in Indian Logic & Metaphysics by Dr..
Pt. Sukhlalji Sanghavi, Indian Studies, Calcutta, p, 33 48 स्वतः सर्वप्रमाणानां प्रामाण्यमिति गृह्यताम् । प्रलोकवार्तिक, पृ० 48 49 दोषतचाप्रमाणत्वे स्वत:प्रामाण्यवादिनाम् । श्लोकवातिक पृ. 49,
कारिका 56
46
भर

Page #133

INDIAN LOGIC
50 'प्रमाणतोऽर्थप्रतिपत्तो प्रवृत्तिसामर्थ्यादर्थवत् प्रमाणम्' इति तस्मादप्रामाण्यमपि
परोक्षमित्यतो द्वयमति परत इत्येष एव पक्षः श्रेयान् । न्यायमञ्जरी पृ. 160 51 प्रमाणत्वाप्रमाणत्वे स्वतः साख्याः समाश्रिताः । सर्वदर्शनसंग्रह, पृ. 279 52 ...स्वरूपस्य स्वतो गतिः। प्रामाण्यं व्यवहारेण....॥ प्रमाणवातिक I. 6-7 53 यदि स्वरूपमात्रं स्वतो गम्यते न प्रामाण्यं कथं तहि तदवगम्यमित्याह
'प्रामाण्यं व्यवहारेण' अर्थक्रियाज्ञानेन । यस्य साधनज्ञानस्य तादात्म्यात् अनुभूतेऽपि प्रामाण्ये साशङ्का व्यवहारोऽनभ्यासवशात् अनुत्पन्नानुरूपनिश्चयास्तत्र अर्थक्रियाज्ञानेन प्रामाण्य निश्चयः, अन्यत्र तु विभ्रमशङ्कासङ्कोचात् उत्पत्तावेव स्वरूपस्य प्रामाण्यस्य स्वतो गतिरित्युक्तम् । .....
प्रमाणवातिकवृत्ति, I. 7 54 तत्त्वसङ्ग्रह, 3123 (पञ्जिकासहित) 55 Buddhist Logic, Vol. I, p. 66 56 The Nyaya Theory of Knowledge, (S.C. Chatterjee),.
1950, p. 91 56 प्रमाणत्वाप्रमाणत्वे स्वतः साङ्ख्याः समाश्रिताः । । नैयायिकास्ते परतः सौगताश्चरमं स्वतः ॥
__ सर्वदर्शनसङ्ग्रह, पृ. 279 58 अकत्रय, पृ० 14 59 तत्प्रमाण्यं स्वतः परतश्चेति । परीक्षामुख, I. 13 तदुभयमुत्पत्तो परत एव ज्ञप्ती तु स्वतः परतश्चेति ।
प्रमाणनयतत्त्वालोक, I. 21 •60 भारतीय तत्त्वविद्या (पं. सुखलालजी) p. 26 61 Buddhist Lagic, Vol. I, p. 72 62 प्रमाणं द्विधा । प्रत्यक्ष परोक्षं च । प्रमाणमीमांसा I. 9-10 . 63 मानं द्विविधं विषयद्वैविध्यात्...। प्रमाणवातिक, II.1 -64 तस्मादननुमानत्वं शब्दे प्रत्यक्षवत् भवेत् । गैरूप्यरहितत्वेन ताग्विषयवर्जनात् ॥
___प्रलोकवार्तिक, पृ. 370 65 अथवा सत्यपि विषयद्वैविध्ये सामग्रीभेदात् फलभेदाच्च प्रमाणभेदो भवन्
कथमपाक्रियते ? न्यायमञ्जरी पृ. 30 •66 यदेकलक्षणलक्षितं तद् व्यक्तिभेदेऽपि एकमेव यथा वैशबैकलक्षणलक्षितं
चक्षुरादिप्रत्यक्षम् , अवैशद्यलक्षणलक्षितं शब्दादि इति । चक्षुरादिसामग्रीभेदेऽपि

Page #134

ON THE PROBLEMS OF KNOWLEDGE
125
हि तज्ज्ञानानां वैशबैकलक्षणलक्षितत्वेनैवाभेदः प्रसिद्धः प्रत्यक्षरूपताऽनतिक्रमात् , तद्वत् शब्दादिसामग्रभेदेऽपि अवैशबैकलक्षणलक्षितत्वेन एवाभेदः
शब्दादीनाम् परोक्षरूपत्वाविशेषात् । प्रमेयकमलमार्तण्ड, पृ. 192 67 तत्त्वसङ्ग्रह, 1547-1549 68 एवं सति अनुमाने एवान्तर्भावात् न प्रमाणान्तरत्वं स्यादित्यभिप्रायः । वत्त्व
सङ्ग्रहपञ्जिका, पृ. 465 69 प्रशस्तपादभाष्य (चौखम्बा सं. सि. No 61) पृ. 576-577 70-72 साङ्ख्यतत्त्वकोमुदी, कारिका 5
न्यायमञ्जरी, पृ. 36 74 मभावप्रत्यक्षस्य आनुभविकस्वात् अनुपलम्भोऽपि न प्रमाणान्तरम् । न्याय
सिद्धान्तमुक्तावसी, कारिका 144 . प्रकरणपञ्चिका (चौखम्बा सं. सि. No 17) पृ० 118-124
The Six ways of Knowing (D. M. Dutt ), p. 164 76 अकत्रय, पृ. 7-8 77 अकत्रय, पृ. 5 तथा 100 78 स्यान्मतिरेषा विशिष्टविषयाणि प्रमाणानि । विशेषविषयं प्रत्यक्षं सामान्य
विषयमनुमानमिति । न्यायवार्तिक, पृ. 4 Nyayadarsana ( Bengali ), Vol. I, p. 87 The comment of Udyotakara on the word 'pramānatah' used by Vātsyāyana is noteworthy. It is : tatra pramaṇata iti tasirvacanavibhaktivyaptipradarsanarthah.........vacanavyaptya
samplava vyavasthā ca Nyāyavārtika, p. 4 80 न्यायभाष्य I. 1.3 81 न्यायवार्तिक, पृ० 5 12. स्यान्मतं यदि संकीयेरन् प्रमाणानि ननु एकेन प्रमाणेनाधिगतेऽर्थे द्वितीयं
प्रमाणं व्यर्थम् आपद्येत ।........न च सर्वस्मिन्नर्थे संप्लवोऽस्तीति अतो __- न वैययम् । न्यायवार्तिक, पृ. 5 83 Pt. D. Malvania's notes on the Nyayavataravartikavrtti,
p. 215

Page #135


Page #136
_