Nyaya Theory of Knowledge

Author(s): S C Chateerjee
Publisher: University of Calcutta
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/011115/1

Page #1


Page #2

THE NYĀYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
A CRITICAL STUDY OF SOME PROBLEMS OF
LOGIC AND METAPHYSICS
BY
S. C. CHATTERJEE, M.A., PH.D. PREMCHAND ROYCHAND SCHOLAR (CAL.), LECTURER IN PHILOSOPHY.
CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY
OF CAL
VERSITY
Irri
ALCUTTA
OVANCEME
"
EVENT OF
LEARTIC
PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA
1939

Page #3

PRINTED IN INDIA
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY BHUPENDRALAL BANERJES AT TEB CALOUTTA UNIVERSITY PBRSS, SENATE HOUSE, CALCUTTA
at To
ALCORANO PREBERITE POZWAL, BEROESE OBIE, ONE CURTA
Reg. No 1117B-January, 1939–

Page #4

IN MEMORY
OF
MY MOTHER
AND
MY FATHER

Page #5


Page #6

CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE
ху
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
BOOK I
THE METHOD OF VALID KNOWLEDGE
(PRAMAŅA)
CHAPTER II
THE NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
1. Definition of Knowledge (buddbi) 2. Classification of Knowledge 3. Memory and Dream 4. Doubt (samsaya) 5 Error (viparyyaya) 6. Theories of Illusion in Indian Philosophy 7. Hypothetical Argument (tarka)
CHAPTER III
VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD (PRAMA AND
PRAMANA)
1. Definition of pramā or valid knowledge 2. Definition of pramāņa or the method of
knowledge 3. Nyāya criticism of the Bauddha views of
pramāna
4. Nyāya criticism
Sārkhya views
of the Mimāṁsā and

Page #7

viii
CONTENTS
PAGB
CHAPTER IV
THE FACTORS OF VALID KNOWLEDGE (PRAMA)
1. The subject, object and method of valid
knowledge 2. Distinction of the method from the subject
and object of valid knowledge
CHAPTER V
THE TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
1. The problem, and alternative solutions 2. The Nyāya theory of extrinsic validity and
invalidity 3. Objections to the theory answered by the
Nyāya 4. Criticism of the Sārikhya view of intrinsic
validity and invalidity 5. Criticism of the Bauddha theory of intrinsic
invalidity and extrinsic validity 6. Criticism of Mīmāmsā theory of intrinsic
validity and extrinsic invalidity 7. Indian and Western theories of Truth
101
110
BOOK II
PERCEPTION AS A METHOD OF KNOWLEDGE
(PRATYAKŞAPRAMAŅA)
CHAPTER VI
THE DEFINITION OF PERCEPTION
125
1. Primacy of perception over other methods of
knowledge
125

Page #8

CONTENTS
2. 3.
PAGE The Buddhist definition of perception
129 The Jaina, Prābhākara and Vedānta definitions of perception
132 The Nyāya definitions of perception
135
4
CHAPTER VII
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
143
1. The Senses (indriya) 2. Function of the senses 3. The nature and function of the mind (manas) 4. The self and its function in perception
143 151 157
161
CHAPTER VIII
ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
166
166 168
1. Different kinds of perception and the cate
gories of reality 2 Perception of substances or things (dravya) 3. Perception of attributes (guņa) and actions
(karma) 4 The universal (sāmânya), particularity (višeşa)
and the relation of inherence (samavāya) 5 Perception of non-existence (abhāva) 6 Internal perception and its objects
174
180 191 199
CHAPTER IX
207
207
THREE MODES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
1. Nirvikalpaka and savikalpaka perceptions 2. Recognition (pratyabhijñā) as a mode of
perception 11—(1117B)
224

Page #9

CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER X
EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION (ALAUKIKA PRATYAKŞA)
228
1. Sāmānyalakşana or the perception of classes 2. Jñāpalakṣaṇa or acquired perception 3. Yogaja or intuitive perception
228 238 248
BOOK III
THE THEORY OF INFERENCE (ANUMĀNA
PRAMĀNA)
CHAPTER XI
THE NATURE OF INFERENCE
253
1. Definition of Anumāna or Inference 2. Distinction between perception and inference 3. The constituents of inference
253 204 256
CHAPTER XII
THE GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
261
1. The logical ground of vyāpti or universal relation
261 2. The question of petitio principii in inference 274 3. The psychological ground of inference (pakşată) 277 4. Lingaparāmarsa as the immediate cause of inference
284
CHAPTER XIII
CLASSIFICATION AND LOGICAL FORMS OF INFERENCE
289
1.
Svārtha and Parārtha inferences

Page #10

CONTENTS
PAGE 2. Pūrvavat, Seşavat and Sāmānyatodřsta inferences
291 3. Kevalānvayı, Kevala-vyatireki and Anvayavyatireki inferences
292 4. The logical form of inference
297
CHAPTER XIV
THE FALLACIES OF INFERENCE
306
306
309
311
1. Distinction between a valid and an invalid
reason 2. The fallacy of savyabhicāra or the irregular
middle 3. The fallacy of viruddha or the contradictory
middle 4. The fallacy of prakaranasama or the counter
acted middle 5. The fallacy of asiddha or the unproved middle 6. The fallacies of kālātīta and bādbita or the
mistimed and contradicted middles 7. The fallacies of chala, jātı and nigrahasthāna
312 314
317
319
BOOK IV
UPAMĀNA OR COMPARISON
CHAPTER XV
325
325
THE NATURE AND FORMS OF UPAMANA
1. The Nyāya definition of upamāna 2. The Jaina, Mimāṁsā and Vedānta views of
upamāna 3. The classification of upamāna
327 332

Page #11

CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER XVI
UPAMANA AS AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE
(PRAMANA)
335
335
1. Can upamāna give us any valid knowledge ? 2. Can upamāna be reduced to any other
pramāņa ? 3. Conclusion
337 340
BOOK V
SABDA OR TESTIMONY
CHAPTER XVII
345
THE NATURE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SABDA 1. The Nyāya definition of sabda and its different
kinds 2. Other systems on the nature and forms of
sabda
345
3417
CHAPTER XVIII
351
OF WORDS (PADA)
1. Sounds and words 2. Words and their meanings 3. The import of words 4. The unity of words and the hypothesis of
sphoța
351 353 358
362
CHAPTER XIX
366
OF SENTENCES (VAKYA)
1. The construction of a sentence
366

Page #12

xiii
PAGE
2. The meaning of a sentence
371
3. The import of sentences
375
4. Sabda as an independent source of knowledge 381
CONTENTS
CHAPTER XX
OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
1. Different views about the ultimate sources of
knowledge
2. Arthapattı or postulation as a source of know
ledge
3. Abhāva and anupalabdhi as sources of know
ledge
4. Smrti or memory as a distinct source of know
ledge
5. Summary and general estimate of Nyaya Epistemology
INDEX
390
390
393
400
405
411
419

Page #13

ABBREVIATIONS
Du 22 DEE
BP. Bhāṣāpariccheda (Nirnaya Sagar edn.). NB. ... Nyāya-Bbåșya. NBT ... Nyāyabınduțīkā (Bibliotheca Indica edn.). NK. Nyāyakandali (Vizianagram edn.). NL. ... Nyāyalīlāvati (Nirnaya Sagar edn.). NM. Nyāyamañjari (Vizianagram edn.). NS. ... Nyāya-Sūtra. NSV... Nyāyasūtravștti. NV. .. Nyāya vārttika (Chowkbamba edn.). NVT. ... Nyāyavārttıkatātparyatīkā ( Do.). NVTP. ... Nyāyavārttı katātparyaparisuddhi (Bib. Ind. edn.).
Padārthadharmasamgraha (Chowkhamba edn ). Siddhāntacandrıcā (Nirnaya Sagar edn.). Sāstradīpikā ( Do.). Siddhāntamuktāvali ( Do. ). Sārasaṁgraha (Benares edn ). Tarkabhāşā (Poona edn.).
Tattvacıntāmaņi (Bibliotheca Indica edn.). TD. Tattvadīpıkā (Calcutta edn.). TK. Tarkakaumudi (Nirnaya Sagar edn.). TKD. Tattvakaumudi (Calcutta edn.).
Tarkāmịta ( Do. ). TR. ... Tārkıkarakņā (Benares edn.). TS. ... Tarkasamgraba (Calcutta edn.). TTS. ... Tattvārtbädhigama-Sūtra (Bib. Jain. edn.). VB. ... Vyāsa-Bhāșya.
Vedāntaparıbhāşā (Calcutta edn.). ... Vaišeşika-Sūtra (Chowkhamba edn.).
IM.
VP.

Page #14

PREFACE
The history of Indian philosophy is a record of many different forms and types of philosophical thought. There is bardly any system in the history of Western philosophy which has not its parallel in one or other of the systems of Indian philosophy. But of the Indian systems, the Vedānta has received the greatest attention and it has sometimes passed as the only Indian system worth the name. This is but natural The Vedānta with its sublime idealism has an irresistible appeal to the moral and religious nature of man It has been, and will ever remain, a stronghold of spiritualism in life and pbilosophy. It is like one of “ the great living wells, which keep the freshness of the eterual, and at which man must rest, get his breath, refresh himself.” “The paragon of all monistic systems," says William James, " is the Vedānta philosophy of Hindostan." Although we have not such a sublime monism in the Nyāya, yet its contribution to philosophy is not really inferior in any way. In fact, the other systems--the Vedānta not except. ed--have been greatly influenced by its logical and dialectical technicalities. In their later developments all the systems consider the Naiyāyıka as the most powerful opponent and try to satisfy his objections. The understanding of their arguments and theories presupposes, therefore, the knowledge of the Nyāya.
As a system of realism, the Nyāya deserves special study to show that Idealism was not the only philosophical creed of ancient India. Then, as a system which contains a thorough refutation of the other schools, it should be studied before one accepts the validity of other views, if only to ascertain how far those view's can satisfy the acid test of

Page #15

xvi
the Nyaya criticisms and deserve to be accepted. But above all, as a thorough-going realistic view of the universe, it supplies an important Eastern parallel to the triumphant modern Realism of the West, and contains the anticipations as well as possible alternatives of many contemporary realistic theories. The importance of the Nyaya is, therefore, as great for the correct understanding of ancient Indian philosophy, as for the evaluation of modern Western philosophy.
The theory of knowledge is the most important part-in fact, the very foundation of the Nyaya system. This book is an attempt to give a complete account of the Nyaya theory of knowledge. It is a study of the Nyaya theory of knowledge in comparison with the rival theories of other systems, Indian and Western, and a critical estimation of its worth. Though theories of knowledge of the Vedanta and other schools have been partially studied in this way by some, there has as yet been no such systematic critical and comparative treatment of the Nyaya epistemology. The importance of such a study of Indian realistic theories of knowledge can scarcely be overrated in this modern age of Realism
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The scope of the book is limited to the history of the Nyaya philosophy beginning with the Nyaya-Sūtra of Gautama and ending with the syncretic works of Annam Bhatta, Viśvanatha and others. It does not, however, concern itself directly with the historical development of the Nyaya. There are ample evidences to show that Nyaya as an art of reasoning is much older than the Nyaya-Sutra. We find references to such an art under the names of nyaya and vākovākya in some of the early Upanisads like the Chandogya (vil. 1.2) and the Subāla (i). It is counted among the upāñgas or subsidiary parts of the Veda (vide Caraṇavyūha, ii; Nyāya-Sūtra-Vrtti, 1.1.1). It 18 mentioned under the names of anvīkṣikī and tarkaṣāstra in some of the

Page #16

PREFACE
xvii
oldest chapters of the Mahābhārata (vide sabhā, anuśāsana and śānti parvas). We need not multiply such references. Those bere given show that the Nyāya as an art or science of reasoning existed in India long before the time of Gautama, the author of the Nyāya-Sūtra. As a matter of fact, it has been admitted by Vātsyāyana, Uddyotakara, Jayanta Bhatta and others that Gautama was not so much the founder of the Nyāya as its chief exponent who first gave an elaborate and systematic account of an already existing branch of knowledge, called nyāya, in the form of sūtras or aphorisms. It is in these sūtras that the Nyāya was developed into a realistic pbilosopby on a logical basis. Wbat was so long mere logic or an art of debate became a theory of the knowledge of reality. It is for this reason that the present work is based on the Nyāya-Sūtra and its main commentaries.
So far as the account of the ancient Nyāya is concerned, my sources of information are mainly the Nyāya-Sūtra, Nyāya-Bhāsya, Nyāyarāittika, Nyāyazārttikatātpanyatīkā, Tātparyaparıśuddhi, Nyāyamañjarī and Nyāyasūtravittı. In my account of the modern and syncretist schools of the Nyāya, I have mainly made use of Gangesa's Tattvacıntāmaņi with the commentary of Mathurānātha, Jagadīša's ?'arkām?. ta, Annam Bhatta's Tarkasañgruha and Dipikā, Varadarāja's Tārkıkarakṣā, Keśava Miśra's Tarkabhāṣā and Viśvanátba's Kārikāvalī with Siddhāntamuktālali and Dinakarī. I have also consulted several English expositions of Indian philosophy, like Dr. Jhā's Nyāya Philosophy of Gautama, Sır B. N. Seal's Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus, Sir S. Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy, Dr. D. M. Datta's Six Ways of Knowing, Professor Keith's Indian Logic and Atornism, Dr. S. N. Dasgupta's History of Indian Philosophy, and MM. Kuppuswāmi Sāstri's Primer of Indian Logic. My indebtedness to these and other works has been indicated by footnotes in the proper places.
1-(1117B)

Page #17

xviii
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The method of exposition adopted in the book is comparative and critical. I have always tued to explain and develop the ideas and theories of Indian pbilosophy in terms of the corresponding ideas and concepts of Western pbilosophy. The great danger of this is the tendency to read, consciously or unconsciously, Western ideas into Indian philosophy. I have taken all possible care to guard against the imposition of foreign ideas on the genuine thoughts and concepts of Indian philosophy. As a general rule, the different parts of the Nyāya theory of knowledge have been first explained and compared with those of the other systems of Indian philosophy. For the sake of completeness, the Indian theories have sometimes been elaborated in such details as to give one the impression of prolixity I have then undertaken a discussion of the Indian views from the standpoint of Western phulosophy No attempt has been made to affiliate the Indian views with parallel views in Western philosophy. Such an attempt cannot surely do justice to the originality and individuality of Indian thought. Wbile bringing out the points of agreement between Indian and Western philosophy, their difference and distinction have not been ignored and passed over. I have not been able to support or justify the Indian theories on all points. It has been found necessary to modify them in some places and supplement them in the light of Western pbilosophy. At the same time, I bave duly emphasised the special contributions of Indian philosophy towards the solution of the problems of knowledge discussed in Western philosophy.
In conclusion, I take this opportunity to express my gratitude first to the late lamented Professor Henry Stephen, of revered memory, who by his life and teaching made the study of Western pbilosopby popular among Indian students and infused into my youthful mind the spirit of an intensive philosophical study. I have also to

Page #18

PREFACE
xix
acknowledge my indebtedness to Sir B. N. Seal, who was a versatile genius and an eminent authority in Indian and Western philosophy, and from whom I received great inspiration and valuable guidance in the early days of my researches in Indian philosophy. I have to express further my deep sense of gratitude to Professor K. C. Bhattacharyya, a profound thinker and astute metaphysician, who for some time held the George V Chair of Philosophy in the Calcutta University. It was my proud privilege to sit at his feet, and discuss and clear up some of the abstruse problems of logic and philosophy treated in this book. I have to acknowledge with thanks tho great help I have received from MM. Pandit Sītārām Sāstrı, of the Calcutta University, while studying some original works of the Nyāya philosophy.
I have to express further my most grateful thanks to the great savant, Sır S Radhakrishnan, George V Professor of Philosophy, Calcutta University, and Spalding Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics, Oxford University, for the constant encouragement, help and guidance I have received from bim in completing this work. My thanks are also due to my esteemed friend and talented writer, Dr. D. M. Datta of the Patna College, for reading considerable parts of the manuscript and for making valuable suggestions. I am obliged to the authorities of the Calcutta University, especially to Dr. Syamaprasad Mookerjee, its ex-ViceChancellor, and Mr. Jogeschandra Chakravorti, its Registrar, for kindly undertaking the publication of the book at the University Press. I must thank also Mr. Dinabandhu Ganguli, Superintendent, Mr. Bhupendralal Banerjee, Printer, and Mr. Jatındramohan Roy, Reader of the Press, for their help and co-operation in the printing of this work.
January, 1939.
S. C. CHATTERJEE

Page #19


Page #20

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Nyāya philosophy is primarily concerned with the conditions of valid thought and the means of acquiring a true knowledge of objects. Nyāya as a science lays down the rules and methods that are essentially necessary for a clear and precise understanding of all the materials of our knowledge as these are derived from observation and authority. With this end in view, the science of Nyāya deals with all the processes and methods that are involved, either directly or indirectly, in the right and consistent knowledge of reality. That this is so appears clearly from the common use of the word ānrīksıkī as a synonym for the Nyāyaśāstia The name invīkşıki means the science of the processes and methods of a reasoned and systematic knowledge of objects, supervening on a vague understanding of them on the basis of mere perception and uncriticised testimony In other words, it is the science of an analytic and reflective hnowledge of objects in continuation of and as an advance on the unreflective general knowledge in which we are more receptive than critical. It is the inediated knowledge of the contents of faith, feeling and intuition. Accordingly, Nyāya (literally meaning methodıcal study) may be described as the science of the methods and conditions of valid thought and true knowledge of objects. In a narrow sense, however, nyāya is taken to mean the syllogistic type of mference, consisting of five propositions called its members or factors.'
It should, however, be remarked here that the epistemological problem as to the methods and conditions of valid knowledge is not the sole or the ultimate end of the
TC., II, Chapter on
? Prati ñādıpañe akaganudāyatram ngāyatvan, Didhite on Nyāya ani Avayava

Page #21

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Nyāya philosophy. Its ultimate end, like that of the other systems of Indian philosophy, is liberation, which is the summum bonum of our life. This highest good is conceived by the Nyāya as a state of pure existence which is free equally from pleasure and pain. For the attainment of the highest end of our life, a true knowledge of objects is the sure and indispensable means Hence it is that the problem of knowledge finds an important place in the Nyāya philosophy.
But an enquiry into the conditions of valid thought and the methods of valid knowledge presupposes an account of the nature and forms of cognition or knowledge in general. It requires us alo to consider the nature and method of valid knowledge in general and the nature and test of truth or validity in particular. Hence the preliminary questions that arise in the Nyāya theory of knowledge are What is cognition or knowledge as such? What are its different fornis ? What is valid knowledge? What is meant by a method of valid know ledge in general? What do we mean by truth or valıdity? What is the test of truth, the measure of the knowledge, the standard of validity ? What are the constituents or factors of valid knowledge?
It is a matter of historical interest to note here that, among other things, the problems of knowledge in general and those of the methods of valid knowledge in particular were brought home to the Naijāyikas by the Buddhists and other sceptical thinkers of ancient India in the course of their scathing criticism of the realistic philosophy of Gautama.' They set at naught almost the whole
1 This 18 clear from the opening verse of Uddyotakara's Nyāyaiārttila, in which It is mentioned that the object of the Värttıka 18 tu remove the misconceptions of the critics of Gautama's teaching even though it was well explained by the great commentator Vätsyāyana In explaining this verse Vacaspati mentions the name of Digpăga, the great Buddhist logician, as one of the bard critics of Gautama's philosophy. In the Nyāyavārttikatāt paryaţiká be bas given a clear account of some of the difficulties raised by the Buddhists in connection with the question of pramāna

Page #22

INTRODUCTION
3
of the Nyaya philosophy as an edifice built on sand. The Nyaya teaches that the highest good is attainable only through the highest knowledge. But the theory of knowledge in it is a vicious circle. It takes upon itself the futile task of Kant's first Critique where he examines reason in order to prove the validity of thought and reason. "If it is the business of Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason to show how mathematics is possible, whose business is it to show how the Critique of Pure Reason itself is possible?" With regard to the Nyay a theory of knowledge a similar question is asked by the Bauddha critics. It is pointed out by them that a criticism of knowledge must be made by the instrument under criticism and thereby presupposes the very thing in question. Thus the validity of knowledge is made to rest on the validity of the methods of knowledge To maintain that our knowledge is true we must prove that it is really so, that it is derived from a valid method of knowledge which always gives us true knowledge and never leads to a false result. But, then, how are we to know the validity of that method of knowledge? From the nature of the case, the task is an Impossible intellectual feat.
With regard to the knowledge of validity there are two possible alternatives. The validity of knowledge may be cognised by itself, .e. be self-cognised. Or, the validity of one knowledge may be cognised by some other knowledge. The first alternative that knowledge cognises its own validity is inadmissible. Knowledge, according to the Nyaya, cognises objects that are distinct from and outside of itself. It cannot turn back on itself and cognise its own existence, far less its own validity. Hence no knowledge can be the test of its own truth. The second alternative, that the validity of any knowledge is tested by some other knowledge, is
1 The New Realism, p. 61.

Page #23

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
not less objectionable. The second knowledge can at best cognise the first as an object to itself, 2.e. as a particular existent. It cannot go beyond its object, namely, the first knowledge, and see if it truly corresponds with its own object. An act of knowledge having another for its object cognises the mere existence of the other as a cognitive lact. It cannot know the further fact of its truth or falsity. Moreover, of the two cases of knowledge, the second, which knows the first, is as helpless as the first in the matter of its owo valıdıty It cannot, ex hypothesi, be the evidence of its own validity. Hence so long as the validity of the second knowledge is not proved, it cannot be taken to validate any other knowledge. It cannot be said that the second has s»lf-evident validity, so that we do not want any proof of it. This meins that one knowledge, of which the validity is self-evident, is the evidence for the validity of another. But if the truth of one knowledge can be selfevident, why not that of another ? Hence if the second knowledge bas self-evident validity, there is nothing to prevent the first from having the same sort of self-evidence. As a matter of fact, however, all knowledge has validity only in so far as it is tested and proved by independent grounds. Truth cannot, therefore, be self-evident in any knowledge. If, by such arguments, the validity of knowledge itself is made incomprehensible, there can be no possibility of assuring ourselves of the validity of the methods of knowledge, such as perception, inference and the rest. The value and accuracy of a method of knowledge are to be known from the validity of the knowledge derived from it. It follows from this that if the validity of knowledge is unknowable, that of its method is far more unknowable. 1 Hence we are involved in a vicious circle; the validity of knowledge depends on the validity of the method of acquir
I (NVT, pp 4-5

Page #24

INTRODUCTION
ing such knowledge, while the validity of the methods is to be tested by the knowledge derived from them. As Hobhouse puts the matter : “ Our methods create and test our knowledge, while it is only attained knowledge that can test them."! It is the contention of the Bauddha critics that the Nyāya theory of knowledge is involved in such circular reasoning in the attempt to prove the validity of knowledge. This contention, if admitted, renders the Nyāya pbilosophy uttterly worthless. It becomes a hopeless attempt to realise the highest good by means of the higbest knowledge which is impossible.
It was with the object of meeting the difficulties raised by its critics that the old Nyāya entered on a critical study of the problem of knowledge in its relation to reality. After Vātsyāyana's first elaborate exposition of Gautama's NyāyaSūtra, his worthy successors had to defend the Nyāya against renewed attacks. They discussed both the logical and metaphysical problems more fully and also many other questions of general philosoplıcal interest. The resuit is a fully developed and complete system of philosophy. ?
The modern school of the Nyāya, beginning with Gangesa, attempts to give greater precision to the thoughts of the old school It lays almost exclusive emphasis on its theory of knowledge. The forms and concepts invented by it give the Nyāya the appearance of a symbolic logic. The old theory of knowledge is a criticism of thought as related to the real world of things. It is more empirical and practical, and it tries to discover the relations between reals. The modern theory becomes more formal or conceptual. It tries to find out the relations of meanings and concepts. It develops into a formal logic of relations between concepts and their determinants. The old Nyāya gives us what may
1 Hobhouse, Theory of Knowledge, p 487
2 An account of the controversy between the Naisās kus and the Bauddha logicians 18 given in Dr SC Vidyābbūsana's History of Indian Logic, Bk 11, Cb II

Page #25

NYÀYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDUE
be called philosophical logic, while the modern Nyāya is formal logic and dialectic.
The Syncretist school develops the Nyāya further by incorporatiog the Vaišeşıka theory within it. The categories of the Vaiseșika become a part of the objects of knowledge (prameya) in the Nyāya. But this synthesis of the Nyāya and the Vaiseșika does not ignore their differences with regard to the theory of knowledge. One is as severe as the other in its criticism of the opposed logical theories.
The Nyāya theory of knowledge is the cumulative body of the logical studies and their results in the different schools of the Nyāya. It may be said to bave three aspects · the psychological, the logical and the philosophical. The first is concernd with the descriptive analysis of the facts of knowledge. The second is interested especially in the criticisni of the forms and methods of knowledge. The third is an altempt to determine the final validity of knowledge as an understanding of reality. These aspects of the Nyāya epistemology, however, are not to be found in abstract separation from each other. In the next chapter we shall have to discuss the mainly psychological questions as to the nature and forms of knowledge.

Page #26

BOOK I
THE METHOD OF VALID KNOWLEDGE
(PRAMANA)

Page #27


Page #28

CHAPTER II
THE NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
1. Definition of Knowledge (buddhi)
If we take knowledge in its widest sense to mean any way of cognising objects, then valid knowledge will be a special form of cognition (buddhi). All cognitions are not valid knowledge. Hence in order to understand the nature of the method of valid knowledge (pramana), we have to consider first the nature and different forms of cognition or knowledge (jñāna) as such.
In the Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophy cognition (buddhi) is taken to mean the same thing as apprehension (upalabdhi), knowledge (ñana) and cognisance (pratyaya).1 Hence we say that knowledge means awareness or apprehension of objects. It includes all cognitions that have a more or less determinate objective reference. The object of apprehension may be a thing or a quality, an act or an emotion, the existent as well as the non-existent. But in every case in which there is knowledge there must be something that stands out as the object of knowledge. Knowledge consists simply in the manifestation (prakāśa) of objects. All things are made manifest or revealed to us when they become objects of knowledge. Further, knowledge is said to be the property of illumination or manifestation that belongs to the
2
1 Buddhirupalabdhurñanamityanarthantaram, NS, 1.1.15 Buddhirupalabdhiriñanam pratyaya iti parvayah, NK., p 171
2 Arthaprakaso buddhih, TK., p 6.
2-(1117B)

Page #29

10
NYAYA TETEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
self. Without this luminous light of knowledge we lose the ground of all rational practice and intelligent activity. It is on the basis of knowledge of some kind that all living beings deal with other objects of the surrounding world. Hence knowledge (buddhi) is regarded as the ground of what may be called the behaviour or conduct of a living being. A living creature behaves differently in relation to different objects because it somehow knows them to be different. Then we are told more definitely that knowledge is that kind of awareness which is meant when, by intiospection, one says 'I am knowing.' This means that knowledge is intellection as distinguished from affection and volition. Something different is meant by the phrase 'I am knowing,' from what is meant by saying 'I am desiring or willing or doing something, or sindply being pleased or displeased with it.' Although knowledge is distinguishable, it is not separable, from feeling and volition. In knowledge the knower does not passively allow himself to be impressed by external objects and end by baving mental copies of those objects. According to the Nyāya, the self is not a mere aggregate or series of conscious phenomena, which is only acted on and determined by sense-impressions, but has no power to react on and determine them. This materialistic and sensationalist theory of the self is rejected by the Nyāya. On the other hand, it conceives the self as a conscious agent which receives impressions of sense, knows external objects through them and acts upon things according to its subjective purposes. Knowledge is a cognitive fact by which we have an apprehension or understanding of objects. But it is bound up with certain affective elements, namely, the feelings of pleasure and displeasure, according as the known objects are pleasurable or painful. Through such feelings knowledge leads to certain conations, viz. desire, aversion
1
TS and TD, P 32

Page #30

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE 11 and volition in the form of an exertion (samīhā) to obtair pleasurable objects and avoid painful ones. ?
Hence knowledge may be said to be a cognitive phenomenon which is always connected with conation through the mediation of feeling In any particular act of knowledge of an object, there is a feeling of being pleased or displeased with it and an active attitude of desire or aversion which may lead to certain overt movements towards or away from the object. The Nyāya, however, does not go so far as to say that knowledge is at once a phase of cognition, feeling and conation. In cognising an object we may also cognise its pleasurable or painful character and also become conscious of certain tendencies in relation to it. But the actual feelings of pleasure and pain or the conative processes of desire, etc., take us beyond cognition. Knowledge is not a phase of feeling or the will, although it may be always connected with them It has a distinctive and self-sufficient character of its own and should not be reduced to feeling or volition.
With regard to the essential nature of knowledge we may ask Is knowledge a substance or an attribute? Is it a mode or an activity ? According to the Nyāya, knowledge is an_attribute of_the_self It is not a substance, since it cannot be the stuff or the constitutive cause of anything, nor is it the permanent substratum of certain recognised and variant properties. The Sāmkhya and the Yoga systems look upon cognition as a substantive mode or modification (vịtti) of the material principle called buddhi, as it reflects the light or consciousness of the self in it This, the Naiyāyıka contends, is unintelligible. We cannot understand how the self's consciousness, which is immaterial and intangible, can be reflected on any material substratum. We should not speak of any reflection, but rather say that knowledge or consciousness belongs naturally to buddhi itself. But this
1 NB, 111-2

Page #31

NYAIA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
will commit us to the absurd hypothesis of two selves or subjects for any case of knowledge. In truth, however, there is but one conscious subject for all cognitions in one person.'
It is generally believed that knowledge is neither a mode nor a substance but a kind of activity or function (kriyā). The Bauddha and the Mimāṁsā systems agree in describing knowledge as an activity, a transitive process. The Nyāya however emphatically repudiates the conception of knowledge as an activity. Jayanta in his Nyāyamasījari (p 20) traces the act theory of knowledge to a grammatical prejudice, a confusion between knowledge as manifestation and the verb),
to know' as denoting an action. When we hear the cipressions ' I know, 'I cognise,' etc., we are apt to be misled nto the belief that knowledge or cognition is an activity or process. But this only shows how in philosophy we may be deceived by the vague expressions of ordinary language
Knowledge, although it is not an activity of any kid, is still a transient phenomenon as appears from the three tenses of the verb 'to know' It is a dated event which is to be regarded as a quality and so can be perceived like physical qualities Just as physical qualities are perceived by their special sense organs, so knowledge is perceived by the internal sense called manas." But knowledge can not be the quality of any material substance, since, unlike that, it does not admit of external perception Physical properties are perceived by the external senses, but knowledge is not so perceived. Being thus fundamentally different from all physical qualities, knowledge is to be regarded as the property of an immaterial substance called soul Still, knowledge is not an essential attribute of the soul. The soul has acquired this property in its bodily setting, i.e. in relation to a body.
1 NB, NTT, NSV and NM AS, 11 15 See also NS 32 1 ff 2 Jūānaknya hi gakirinikā, Sastradimkā, p 56 ('f also Nyāyabindutiha, Chi
NM, p 4.96 , TB, P 18

Page #32

13
To the Advaita Vedanta, knowledge or consciousness as just the self, the very stuff of it. For the Nyaya, knowledge appears as the result of a relation between the soul and the body, which in themselves are not knowledge But when it does appear, it has to exist as an attribute inhering in the soul substance.
NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
Knowledge, as an attribute of the self, is always directed to objects. It always refers beyond itself, .c. to objects outside of and different from itself Knowledge is never self-manifested. The capacity of self-manifestation in knowledge is, according to the Nyaya, a mere hypothesis of the SamkhyaVedanta and the Prabhakara Mimämsä Cognition cannot cognise itself. It can grasp, not itself, but an 'other.' Knowledge is not indeed, like the will, a way of acting on other objects, only it refers or points to something else. We shall have to consider later the question as to how knowledge can be known. The direction towards an object is what has beed called intentional inexistence' by Brentano and Meinong. They take it as a character common to all psychical phenomena. The Nyaya, however, limits it to cognition and denies to cognition the capacity of being directed to itself, 1.c. being self-cognised
2
From what has been said it will appear that knowledge is conceived by the Nyaya in a very wide sense. In Western philosophy thought or consciousness, as a cognitive fact, has sometimes been regarded as an essential attribute of the mind and a pervasive character of all mental phenomena." The Nyaya, however, does not pass over the distinction between thought (jñāna), on the one hand, and feeling, including pleasure and pain, desire and aversion, and will, on the other. Under knowledge it brings together all cognitive facts, like sensation, perception, inference, memory,
3
6
1 Vijñānamanātmasamvedanam, NVT, p 4
Vide Russell, Analysis of Mind pp 14 f
Cf Descartes s distinction of res extensa and res cogitans.

Page #33

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
doubt, dream, illusion and the like. In this sense the buddhi of the Nyāya corresponds to cognition which, placed by the side of feeling and will, gives us the tripartite division of mental phenomena in the traditional school of Western psychology. It stands, as Alexander also has said, “ for all kinds of apprehension of objects, whether sensation, or thought, or memory, or imagination, or any other.” 1
So far the Nyāya view of knowledge seems to be just and comprehensive. But, then, a more fundamental problem is raised. It is the ontological problem of the status of knowledge as a fact of reality. Is knowledge a quality, or a relation, or an activity ?
First, we have the act theory that knowledge is an activity. It is not difficult to see what induced some philosophers to accept this view of knowledge. There can be no knowledge unless the mind responds to the influences of the surrounding world At any moment of inattention or absent-mindedness we do not perceive sounds or know things other than those in which we are engrossed, although the sounds or things may be acting on our senses. If there is to be knowledge, the mind must react to the actions of other things on it. Knowledge is not a reflection of objects on the mind which receives them passively like a mirror or reflector It is a process in which the mind actively reaches out to objects and illuminates them. Hence knowledge must be a kind of activity, rather it is a mental activity.
The act theory of knowledge has been accepted by various schools of philosophy. In Indian philosophy, the Bauddha and the Mīmāmsā systems uphold it For the former, to exist is to act and go to change. Knowledge as an existent fact consists in the act of showing and leading to an object. According to the Mīmāmsaka, the act of knowing
1 Cf Space, Time and Deity Vol 11, p 82

Page #34

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
"
(jñānakriya) refers to an object. For Kant also knowledge involves the synthetic activity of the understanding. Spencer 1 tells us that consciousness arises when the tendencies towards action counteract one another and are therefore thrown back on themselves so as to become conscious of their existence, and knowledge appears as an incident in the adaptation of the organism to the environment. For Bergson also consciousness is a ceaseless creative activity. The voluntarists identify knowing with willing when they hold that cognition is the will when it is thwarted by difficulties and so looks for (.e thinks) means to overcome them. With the pragmatists knowledge is a belief determined by the will. For neo-idealists like Croce and Gentile 2 knowing is the form of theoretical activity and in thinking we create the thought we think about. Alexander, who is a realist, seems to treat knowledge as a mental act when he says that every experience may be analysed into two distinct elements and their relation to one another, namely, the act of mind or awareness and the object of which it is aware, and that the one is an-ing and the other an-ed' The Behaviourists go to the other extreme and identify knowing with the activity of the body. They hold that consciousness implicit behaviour, thinking is sub-vocal speaking, and knowledge is a particular kind of behaviour in animals, or such response to the stimulus as has the characteristics of appropriateness and accuracy.
4
IS
We may dismiss the behaviouristic contention that knowledge is a particular kind of bodily behaviour. That there is any behaviour, explict or implicit, can be known only if there is a knowing subject. Behaviour cannot explain knowledge, but presupposes knowledge in order to be
3
15
1 Principles of Psychology, Vol I, Pt IV
2 Cf CEM Joad, Introduction to Modern Philosophy, Ch 3
3 Space, Time and Deity, Vol. I, pp 11-12, Vol II, p 86
4 Cf. Watson, Behaviour, Russell, Analysis of Mind, pp 255 ff.

Page #35

16
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
understood. Further, from all we know about the conduct of living beings it appears that behaviour arises out of conduct and is not identical with it. Behaviour may be the objective side of knowledge It has also a subjective side which is reflected in behaviour or overt action. This is recognised by Russell in huis Outline of Philosophy, in which he supplements the objective view of knowledge as a way of reacting to the environment, by the subjective view of it as an awareness. The Naiyāyıka rejects altogether the act theory of knowledge as a giammatical prejudice, and excludes knowledge from the category of karma or action. Even if we suppose that knowledge is an activity, the question will ause Whit is the nature of this activity ? It cannot be any kind of physical activity, force or motion. Nor can it be a psychical activity The existence of any activity in the mind or consciousness is a highly questionable fact. According to James, the wall is a relation between the mind and its ideas, and in willing there is no innei vation or putting forth of energy by the mind into the body. Titchener - and some inodern psychologists also endorse this view and exclude the will from among the elementary inental processes The Bhagavadgītā' anticipates these modern psychologists when it says that all actions take place in the material world and it is only egoism that deludes the self into the belief that he is an agent.' In so far as this is true, we cannot speak of knowledge as an activity except by way of metaphor In knowledge itself as an awareness we find an object that is cognised and a subject or sell that cognises it, but not any activation or energisation. An act is as much an object of knowledge as any physical thing, quality, or action. It is manifested by knowledge, and is not identical with it. On the other
The Principles of Psychology, Vol II, Ch XXVI ? A Text-Book of Psychology, Sec. 10, 3 Ad, III, sl 27.

Page #36

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
hand, knowledge appears as a standing and an accomp) fact which manifests everything that comes before it is more like a static illumination than a sweeping flow conscious stuff. Hence knowledge is different from action. Among modern writers Moore and Broad resute the act theory of knowledge so strongly advocated by Dawes Hicks.'
The second theory with regard to the nature of knowledge is that it is a relation between certain entities. According to Meinong, the Austrian realist, and the Critical realists, knowledge is a relation between three terms, viz. a nund, an object, and a content. When I know the table, my mind comes into relation with a physical object through the content of tableness. In The Problems of Philosophy Russell seems to accept the view that knowledge is a three-term..relation Some other realists hold that knowledge is a relation between two terms, namely, a mind and any object. Moore reduces cognition to the holding of a relation between a sense datum and a character. Broad also agrees with Moore in this respect and denies the existence of any mental act. ? Russell in his work Our Knowledge of the External World reduces the knowledge-relation to a two-term process, 2.e a relation between the mind and the external world. The Neo-Realists go further and reduce knowledge to a relation between one kind of terms. According to them, “knowledge is not a relation between a knowing subject and an object known. It is merely a special sort of relation between objects." $ In the words of the new realists, "Things wben consciousness is had of them become themselves contents of consciousness ; and the same things thus figure both in the so-called external
1 Cf L A Reid, Knowledge and Truth, pp 186 f. 9 Cf L A Reid, op cit,
3 Essays in Critical Realism, p 89. 3—(1117B)

Page #37

18
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
world and in the manifold which introspection reveals.” 1 Russell advocates this theory in The Analysis of Mind. James in his Essays in Radical Empiricism reduces knowledge directly to a relation between one type of entities. According to him, knowing can be easily explained as a particular sort of relation into which portions of pure experience' may enter. The relation itself is a part of 'pure experience,' one of its terms becomes the subject or bearer of the knowledge, the knower, and the other becomes the object known
The relation theory of knowledge does not stand the test of sound criticism Although the relation between the subject and the object takes the form of knowledge, knowledge itself is not a relation. All that we seem to be justified in saying is that knowledge appears when the subject becomes related to the object, but it is a new phenomenon other than the subject-object relation. According to the Naiyāyikas, knowledge may be said to arise ultimately out of the relation between the soul and the body Still, it is not merely a relation between the two, but a new property accruing to the soul therefrom. Whether knowledge can be treated as a quality or not, we shall consider next The point we are to stress here is that a relation as such is not a cognition but a cognitum, i.e. an object of cognition. Of course, when a thing is known, it enters into what we call the knowledge-relation. But this assumes the subject's awareness of the thing as the basis of the relation. So the relation cannot constitute knowledge. As Reid has said,
knowledge is not itself a relation but the apprehension of relations 'Supposing that knowledge is a relation, we ask : How do we know it? It must be through some other knowledge which, therefore, transcends the relation and is
1 The New Realism, p 85 % LA Reid, op cit, p 189,

Page #38

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
19
not identical with it. In fact, the subject-object relation does not produce knowledge but only serves to manifest it, just as the contact between the eye and a physical thing serves to manifest its colour but does not produce it.
The third view with regard to knowledge is that it is a quality. According to Descartes and his followers, thought or cognition is the essential attribute of the mind or the soul substance, just as extension is the essential attribute of matter. The Sārkhya and the Yoga systems look upon knowledge or cognition as a modification of buddhi or the intellect which is its substratum. The Rāmānuja school of the Vedānta takes knowledge as an essential quality of the self. The elf is not, as the Advaitins say, itself knowledge but is qualified by knowledge Knowledge is not the essence of the self, but an attribute owned by the self. The Naiyāyıkas and the Vaišeşikas also advocate the quality theory of knowledge. For them, knowledge is an attribute which inheres in the soul substance which, however, 18 separable from it.
But the quality theory of knowledge also involves certain difficulties. It cannot account for the reference to objects that is inherent in knowledge A quality is an intransitive property of a thing. It hangs on the thing and does not point to anything beyond. It is in activity that we find a transition from one to another.' For one thing, to act means aggressively to reach another. But at the same time we must not overlook the distinction between the ideal reference' to object that we find in knowledge and any form of physical process or transeunt causality. Knowledge refers to its object and is in this sense a cognition of the object. It does not however move towards it. In it there is no transition from point to point in space In so far as this is the case, the Nyāya is right in opposing the attempt to identify knowledge with activity. But the view of knowJedge as a quality misses the oulier fact of objective

Page #39

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
reference that we find in knowledge. Knowledge seems to be what Reid calls 'a self-transitive process' Its selftranscension is, as Hoerplé points out, directly experienced by us.' So it seems to occupy a position intermediate between quality and activity. To describe its self-transcension or objective reference and, at the same time, demarcate it from physical activity, we may say that knowledge is an ideal activity.' But after all the characterisation of knowledge as an activity, be it physical or ideal, is only a symbolic description. Wbile physical activity is real and intelligible, an ideal activity' can hardly be made intelligible to us. Knowledge is, therefore, neither a ) quality, nor an activity, nor a relation.
Knowledge is the most fundamental fact of reality. It is the intrinsic character of all reality. Without pausing bere to discuss the ontological problem as to the nature and constitution of reality, we may say that reality is a living intelligent system. The ultimate constituents of things are not material but living particles u bich not only exist and interact with one another, but somehow experience their existence and activity. These many living particles are the differentiations of one universal spiritual life. A pluralistic constitution of things is not inconsistent with the unity of their ultimate ground which is the Absolute Reality. The real is, therefore, an objective systemi, of which existence and knowledge are two inseparable aspects. It is true that what we know as the consciousness or knowledge of human beings is a specific phenomenon determined by certain conditions as the subject-object relation or the activity of the nervous system and the brain. But while these conditions explain the specific form and character of this or that knowledge, they cannot account for the original sentience or experience which is embedded
1
L
A Reid, op cit, p 188

Page #40

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
21
in reality and conditions those conditions themselves. Hence we conclude that knowledge 18 present in all reality and is manifested in a specific form in man by the subjectobject relation It does not require to be attached as a quality to any other reality, say, matter or mind or squl. It is just the self-expression of reality. In the words of Bosanquet' we may say : “Knowledge is an essential form of the self-revelation of the universe ; experience as a whole is the essential form."
2. Classification of Knowledge
Taking knowledge in the most comprehensive sense as the cognition of objects, the Naiyāyikas proceed to distinguish between its different forms, according to the differences in the nature and accuracy of cognitions. In view of these, knowledge is first divided into anubhava or presentation and smrti or memory.? In anubhava there is a presentational knowledge of objects and so it is felt to be given to us. It is ouiginal in character and not the reproduction of a previous knowledge of objects. Smrti or memory, on the other hand, is not the presentation of objects, but a reproduction of previous experience. Here our knowledge appears to be due not so much to objects themselves as to our past cognitions of those objects. Each of these has been further divided into valid (yathārtha) and non-valid (ayathārtha) forms, according as it does or does not accord with the real nature of its object.
Under anubhava or presentative knowledge we have the two kinds of valid and non-valid presentations. Of these, the former is called pramā and includes all cases of true presentational knowledge of objects. According
1 Logic, Vol II, p 922 2 Sa dvividbá smrtirapubhavasca, Ts and TD., P 82

Page #41

22
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
to the Nyaya, there are four distinct kinds of pramā or valid presentation, namely, perception (pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), comparison (upamāna), and testimony (śabda). In each of these there is a presentation of some object as it really is. Hence pramā, according to the Nyāya, is not any cognition nor any true cognition as such. It is a valid presentational knowledge of objects.1 As a matter of usage, however, the word' knowledge' may be used for prama, according to the context.
There are some cases of knowledge which are presentational in character but not valid These constitute the class of apramā or non-valid presentations (ayathāithānubhava), which includes all cognitions that are either false or not-true but not false Hence under aprama the Nyaya includes doubt (samsaya) with its varieties of conjecture (uha) and indefinite cognition (anadhyavasaya), as well as error (viparyyaya) and hypothetical reasoning (tarka).2 It should here be noted that cognitions which do not agree with the real nature of their objects are not always false or erroneous (bhrama). There may be cognitions which fail to give us a correct presentation of objects and so are not true (pramā). But at the same time they may not make any claim to truth, nor lead to any definite assertion. Such is the case with doubt, conjecture, indefinite cognition and tarka. These are not true indeed, but yet they are not false (vıparyyaya). It is in view of such facts that the Nyaya divides non-valid presentation (ayathārthānubhava) further into doubt (samsaya), error (viparyyaya) and hypothetical argument (tarka). Hence it is not correct to speak of aprama or non-valid presentation, always as a case of bhrama or error. It becomes so when it definitely contradicts its object (viparitanirnaya).
1 Tattvanubhava prama, Saptapadarthi, 140
? Ajatharthanubhavastrivihh samsayaviparyyayatarhabhedat, TS and TD Uhanadhyavasayayoзtu samsiya eva, Saptapadarthi, 39
r 82

Page #42

NAIURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
Memory is not prama or valid knowledge, since it does not refer to presented objects. It may be of two kinds, namely, true and false (yathārthamayathārtham). True memory is in accord with the real nature of the objects remembered, whereas false memory does not tally with the real character of the remembered objects. In waking life we have both these kinds of memory. In dreams our cognitions are false memory-cognitions. Dream is a kind of memory that is not in agreement with the real nature of the cognised objects. All knowledge, however, including dream, refers to some real object; only dream is a false memorial representation of the real.
We may represent the Nyaya classification of knowledge by the following table
Knowledge (buddhi) Knowledge
T Presentation (anubhava)
1
Valid (prama)
Non-valid (uprama) True
Doubt Error (samsaya) (viparyyaya)
(yathartha)
23
Memory (smrti) T
Perception Inference Comparison Testimony (pratyaksa) (anumāna) (upamāna) (sabda)
Hypothetical Argument (tarka)
False (ayathārtha)
1 TB., p. 30
2 Samskaramātrajanyam jñānam smrtiḥ, TS, p 32,
3. Memory and Dream
Memory (smrti) is knowledge of one's own past. It is a representative cognition of past experiences due solely to the impressions produced by them. 2 It is thus different from recognition (pratyabhuña) which, according to the Nyaya,

Page #43

24
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
is a form of qualified perception and bas reference to the direct presentation of some object, although it involves an element of representation.' In memory, however, there is only a revival of our past experiences, in the form of ideas and images, in the same form and order in which they were actually experienced by us at a certain point of past time. The ground or condition of this revival is of course the latent impressions left by our past experiences and retained by the soul.? When the mind comes in contact with such psychic dispositions (Uhāvanā) there is a remembrance of the corresponding original experiences. Memory being thus a cognition, by the same self, of what has been once cognised, is an evidence for the soul's permanence. As to the general character of memory we may, therefore, say that it is knowledge arising solely out of the impressions of previous experiences and pertaining to a permanent soul.
While memory has for its general conditions some original past presentation (pūrvānubhava) and its impression (samskāra), it has a number of specific causes that serve either to retain the impressions or revive them in consciousness, and thereby bring about the phenomenon of memory. Among these are (1) attention (pranidhāna) which fixes anything in the mind, (2) association (nibandha) which connects different experiences and makes them suggestive of one another, (3) repetition (abhyāsa) which secures persistence for the impressions, (4) sign (linga) that leads the mind to the thing signified, (5) characteristic mark (laksana) that recalls the class to which an object belongs, (6) similarity (sādrśya) tbat associates the ideas of like things, (7) ownership (parigraha) which is suggestive of the owner or the thing owned, (8) dependence (āśrayāśritasambandha) of which one term suggests the other, (9)
TD, p 33 Anubhuva janyā smstihet urbhāvanā, ātranātravrttih, TS, P 85,

Page #44
NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE 25 contiguity (anantaryya) which binds together successive phenomena, (10) separation (viyoga) that frequently reminds one of what he is separated from, (11) identity of function (ekakaryya) that recalls similar agents, (12) enmity (virodha) that suggests the rivals in any sphere, (13) superiority (atisaya) that reminds us of what it is due to, (14) acquisition (prupti) ihat frequently recalls its source, (15) covering (vyavadhana) that suggests what is covered, (16) the feelings of pleasure and pain (sukhaduhkha), (17) desire and aversion (acchudvesa), (18) fear (Chaya), (19) need (arthitva) that reminds one of their causes and objects, (20) action (kriya) which is suggestive of the ageni, (21) the feeling of affection (ruga) that often reminds is of its object, (22) ment (dharma) and (233) demerit (adharia) that are suggestive of the belief in pre-existence and help or binder the retention of experiences. These causes of memory cannot be simultaneously operative. Hence recollections are not simultaneous but successive in their appearance in consciousness. Memory is of two kinds, namely, true (yathartha) and false (ayathartha). It is true when it has its basis in some valid presentation (pramajanya) and is in agreement with the real nature of the remembered objects. On the other hand, memory is false when it arises out of such ongmal cognitions as were erroneous (apramajanya) and so does not accord with the natue of the objects iccalled in it. Thus the truth and falsehood of memory depend on those of the corresponding original presentative cognitions (purvunubhava) that constitute the ground of all memory 2 In waking life we have both these kinds of memory. The voluntary or involuntary recollection of past objects, when we are awake, becomes true or false according as it is con INS and NB, 3 2 44 2 Purvanubhavasya yatharthatvayatharthatvabbyam smaranamapi ubhayarupam bhavati, TM 4- (1117 B)

Page #45
26 NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE nected with right or wrong cognitions in the past and so, is or is not in accord with the real nature of the objects remembered. Dreams illustrate what is intrinsically false memory. According to the Nyaya, dream-cognitions are all memorycognitions and untrue in character. They are brought about by the remembrance of objects experienced in the past, by organic disorders and also by the imperceptible influences of past desires and actions (adrsta) ? Hence dream-cognitions have sometimes a moral value in so far as they produce pleasurable or painful experiences in the self according to the merit or demerit accruing from the actions of waking life Dream-knowledge, however, is intrinsically false It is no doubt related to certain objects of the real world But these objects as cognised in dream are not present to sense. They are either past or remote. Still in dreim, objects are actually represented as present Hence there is in dream a false cognition of the real when it represents the not-present as the present, the 'that' as the *this '! It may so happen that dreams sometimes turn out to be true and tally with the subsequent experiences of waking life. But such correspondence between dream-cognitions and waking experience is neither normal nor invariable. Hence dream can never be called pramana, or the source of such presentative knowledge as has a real and an invariable correspondence with the object The Nyaya account of dream ignores the fact that dreamcognitions are as good presentations as our ordinary perceptions Dreams have not the regularity and orderliness of waking perceptions. But otherwise the two are indistinguishable. The presentative character of dreams has been rightly noted by other systems. The Vaisesika considers 1 Svapne tu sarvameva jnanam smaranamayatharthar ca, TB ,P 30 ? Svapoastu adubhutapadarth asmaranaih adrstena dhatudosena ca janyate, TM, 3 Dogavasena taditi sthapa idamityudayat, TB, p 30,

Page #46
NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE 27 dream to be a kind of internal perception due to the inner sense (manas) as aided by impressions of past experiences. It is felt as if coming by way of the external senses. The Mimariisa does indeed take dreams as reproductions of past experiences. But it admits that they appear as presentations and are indirectly connected with the real objects of past experiences. The Advaita Vedanta finds in dream a phenomenon uf some philosophical significance In it there is the mental creation of a world under the influence of avidya as aided by the impressions of waking experiences. But the dream-world is. quite analogous to the world of sense and the sciences That the world of our ordinary expenence may hu a dream is a hypothesis that is admitted even by Russell - to be logically possible, though not as simple and preferable as the common-sense belief in an external world. In all this we have a just recognition of the presentative character of dream-knowledge, even though it is eventually condemned as false and erroneous. The Nyaya view of dream is defective in so far as it reduces dreamcognition to false memory. Dream-cognitions are more like perceptions than memory-cognitions. When we recollect a dream we feel 'such and such objects were seen (not merely remembered) in dream last night.' Dreain is a kind of false perception. It may sometimes be excited by a physical cause as when a bell ringing causes us to dream of going to school. But although sometimes started by a physical cause dreams do not follow such causes up to their end. Dreams are generally independent of the impressions produced by physical causes on our body. Even when excited by a physical cause, the series of experiences tbrough which a dream progresses cannot be traced to a corresponding series of physical causes Still, our dream experiences are more like per i PS., pp. 91 f 2 Problems of Philosophy, pp. 31-35 dvd 191

Page #47
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE ceptions than anything else. These have not indeed the force or zwang with wbich the data of sense come to us. But they seem to possess the vivacity and spontaneity of our ordinary sepse perceptions. At least, they are directly given to us like our perceptions. Dreams are experiences which we have, and do not arrive at by any process of reasoning. Hence it is that they are culled perceptions. But they are false perceptions because they are contradicted by oui waking experiences. To the dreamer, however, they appear as true perceptions, because he cannot relate them to his waking experiences and see how they are contradicted by the latter.' According to the Nyaya, memory (smrti) is not valid knowledge (prama). We can speak of true and false memory. But even true memory, which gives us a true cognition of soine past object, cannot be called pramu or valid knowlerige. On this point Indian systems of philosophy are divided in their opinion Some of them consider memory to be as valid as perception and inference, and look upon it as the source of our knowledge of past facts The Vaisesika accepts memory as valid knowledge distinguished from all forms of wrong cognition. So too the Jaina philosophy counts memory among the forms of valid mediate knowledge (paroksu jnana).: The Advaita Vedanta, we shall see, is not definitely opposed to memory being regarded as valid knowledge. The other systems, especially the Nyaya and the Mimamsa, refuse to recognise memory as valid knowledge (prama). The Mimamsa objection against memory, as we shall see more fully hereafter, is that it gives no new knowledge (anadhigata), but is only a reproduction of some past 1 Cf R S Woodworth, Psychology, Illi edp, pp 115-16 "Or you are fully asleep, and then the image that come are drems an deem crtirely real, 810(e contact with the ob,ective situation has been lost.' 2 CH. PS. p 91, NK , pp 256-57 3 C.TT8., 1, 9-13

Page #48
NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE 29 knowledge. The Nyaya, however, does not admit the Mimamsa contention that any knowlege becomes invalid simply because it refers to a previously known object (glhitagrahitaksta). According to it, what makes memory invalid (aprami) is the absence of the character of presentation (anubhuti) in it. Memory may, in some cases, correspond to real objects. Still it is not valid knowledge, since it does not correspond to given objects and does not arise out of the objects themselves (arthajanya). In memory we have not a cognition of given objects but a re-cognition of what were given, in the same form and order in which they once existed in the past and bave now ceased to exist. That form and order are vow past and therelore no longer real, so that between these and their memory-images we cannot speak of a correspondence to the given. Even when an object is first perceived and then immediately remembered, so that perception and immediate memory refer to one and the same object and are spoken of as equally true, we are to observe that the state of memory borrows its validity from the antecedent perception which produces and fashions it (yacitamandanapruya)As a matter of fact, however, the object ceases to be given and to be the operative cause of knowledge in memory. The recollection of long past or remote objects is clearly independent of the co-operation of these objects (anapeksitartha). Memory, being thus based on no given datum (anarthajanya), fails to give valid presentational knowledge (prama), and so, is not a source of knowledge (pramana).? An examination of the view that memory is not valid knowledge is postponed at this stage. We shall come to it after we bave got all that the Nyaya bas to say about prama and the pramunas. 1 TR and SS, pp 43-46 INM, pp 20-28

Page #49
NYAYA THEORI OF KNOWLEDGE 4. Doubt (samsaya) Doubt (samsaya) is the cognition of conflicting notions? (vimarsa) with regard to the same object? It is the mental reference of two or more contradictory properties to the same object. In it the mind oscillates between differ- ; ent alternate characterisations of some given object.? Doubt thus consists in an alternation between different conflicting notions with regard to the same object. The alternatives between which the mind passes in succession in the state of doubt are called kotis. These may be two or more in different instances of doubt. Sometimes they are contrary terms le g. post and man) and sometimes contradictory terms (e.g. post and not-post) Doubt arises when with regard to some perceived object there is the suggestion of such conflicting alternatives but no definite cognition of any differentia to decide between them Hence doubt has been spoken of as incomplete or indecisive cognition (unaradharanatmaha) But doubt is not merely the absence (abhara of assured cognition (niscaya). It is not mere negation of knowledge. It is a positive state of cognition of mutually exclusive characters in the same tbing and at the saine time The state of doubt may be analysed into the following factors. There is first the presentation of some existent object. Next by virtue of association the presented fact calls forth two or more apperceptive systems, each of which tries to appropriate it but is counteracted by the rest. In the absence of any definite cognition of such differentiating characters in the presentation as answer to any of the apperceptive groups, the mind oscillates between them and we have the phenomenon of doubt. Hence doubt 1 NS., 1 1 23. Ekagmiu dharmini viruddhanina Jharmavaibagtyajninam samsayal, Ts., p. 82

Page #50
NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE 31 supposes the recollection of the differentiating characters of an object but no corresponding presentation of them (visesasmrtyapeksa). The actual process of mental oscillation in doubt is generally expressed in the form of an interrogation, e.g. 'Is the yonder erect figure a man or a post or a tree-trunk?' Doubt is of five kinds. First, it may arise from the perception of such properties as are common to many things, as when we perceive a tall object at a distance and are not sure if it be a man or a pust or a tree-trunk, because tallness is common to them all. Secondly, it arises from the cognition of any peculiar and unique property, as when the cognition of sound makes us doubt if it is eternal or non-eternal, since it is not found in eternal objects like the soul and the atom, nor in non-eternal things like water and earth. Thirdly, at may be due to conflicting testimony, as when the different philosophical theories of the soul leave us in doubt as to the real nature of the soul. Fourtbly, it is caused by the irregularity of perception, as when we doubt if the perceived water really exists or not, since there is a perception of water both in a tank and a mirage. Lastly, doubt springs from irregularity of non-perception, as when we are not sure if the thing we cannot see now really exists or not, since the existent also is not perceived under certain conditions. According to the later Naiyayikas, such as Uddyotakara, Vacaspati and others, there are not five but only three or two kinds of doubt.? Irregularity of perception or non-perception is not by itself a cause of doubt. So also conflict of testimony is not an independent cause, but only an auxiliary condition of doubt. In all cases of doubt there is either the perception of common properties or the cognition of something quite new and uncommon. Gangesa 1 NB,1 1 23 2 NV, and NVT., 1 1, 23

Page #51
NYAYA TAEORY OF KNOWLEDGE speaks of only two sources of doubt, namely, the suspicion of upadhi or condition, and the perception of a property common to many things without any presentation of their differentiating attributes According to the Vaisesika, there is fundamentally only one kind of doubt since it is always due to perception of properties coinmon to many familiar objects. Indefinite cognition (anadhyrvasuya) is a form of knowledge which is quite different and distinct from doubt. Indefinite cognition is incipient knowledge of an object as a mere 'something' without any definition or determinition of what that something is It is illustrated by our ordinary nascent experiences, as when we say 'something passed by without our knowing what it was,' or when in the presence of an unfamiliar living being we say it must be some kind of animal.' : Such indefinite cognition differs from doubt both in origin and essence. Doubt arises from recollection, without any accompanying presentation, of the specific characters of two or more objects, of which we perceive the common properties. The indefinite (anadhya rasaya), however, is a possible form of cognition with regard to objects whose specific character had never been presented to us. Again, the indefinite does not, like doubt, rest on two or inore condicting notions with regard to the same subject. It should bowever be noted here that some of the syncretist writers on the Nyaya-Vaisesika include conjecture (uha) and indefinite cognition (anadhyavasaya) under doubt. According to Sivaditya and Malhiva, conjecture is that form of doubt, in which one of the conflicting suggested alterntives becomes more probable than the other, as when seeing a tall object in the rice field we say 'It is probably a tall man.' Indef 1 TC, 11, pp 210-11 2 PS., pp. 85 f 3 NK, p. 183 4 NL., pp 45-46, NK , ibid

Page #52
NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE 33 nite cognition is that kind of doubt, in which both the alternatives are implicitly present but neither explicitly thought of.' Samkara Misra in his Upaskara suggests that indefinite cognition arises from cognition of a peculiar property which is not found in other things. Hence it corresponds to the second kind of doubt mentioned by the Nyaya. ? Doubt 18 not valid knowledge (prama). It may sometimes have the character of presentation (anubhava) of an object. But it has neither the mark of being an assured definite cognition (asamdigdha) nor that of a true correspondence with the object (yathartha), and so, does not lead to successful activity. In doubt the oscillation of thought between different ideas has no objective counterpart in the real. Nevertheless doubt is not error (viparyyaya). Doubt as a form of cognition, is neither true nor false. It carries with it no definite assertion of any character with regard to its object. It makes no claim to be a true judgment of the object and so the question of its falsity or contradiction does not arise. The value of doubt lies in its being a great impe tus to study and investigation. It is the starting-point of critical knowledge of objects. In this sense it may be said to be the beginning of philosophy. The critical philosophy of Kant is doubtless indebted to the scepticism of Hume. Tha Nyaya account of doubt, it will be seen, gives us some important truths. As a mental state, doubt is shown to be different from both belief and disbelief. It neither affirms nor denies anything, but only raises a problem for thought. As such, doubt should also be distinguished from 'the mere absence of belief.' There is absence of belief even when we do not think of anything at all. In doubt, however, we think of two or more alternatives in regard to the same thing. It always has, as the Nyaya-Vaisesika 1 Uhanadhyavasayayostu sambaya eva, Saptapadarthi, 38, cf. also sec 168 and Madbava's Commentary, Mitabhaqini on it U paskara, 2. 2 17, 5 (1117 B)

Page #53

34
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
""
would say, some kotis which become contradictory when referred to the same subject This point has been rightly noted by Bosanquet1 when he says a definite doubt is unquestionably a disjunctive judgment." He observes also that "when a man first doubts and then decides, on such a question as whether the river he sees before him is safe to ford,......there must be a positive basis of the two or more alternatives as well as one suggested alternative." What this positive basis is or what different bases of doubt there may be have been elaborated by the Nyaya. That the alternatives are exclusive and contradict each other has also been admitted by Bosanquet. But the Nyaya seems to show better insight when it says that doubt is never a definite cognition (avadhārana), but an indecisive questioning attitude towards an object.2 It is not a judgment at all It does not. assert anything When we are in doubt about anything we do not really know nor do we claim to know what it is. We cannot even say that it must be either this or that.' All we can say is: Is it this or that?' It is on account of this that doubt is neither true nor false. For, as Bradley says, "partial ignorance does not make any knowledge fallacious, unless by a mistake I assert that knowledge as unconditional and absolute.' 113
6
5. Error (viparyyaya)
Error (bhrama) is the reverse of valid knowledge (prama). While valid knowledge is the presentation of an object as what it really is (tattvānubhava), erroneous knowledge is the cognition of an object as what it really is not (atattvajñāna). In error an object is cognised as having
1 Logic, Vol I, pp 35, 279, 856
Kimsvidityanyataranna vadharayatı, NB, 1 1 23
3 Principles of Logic, Vol. I, p 11
4 Saptapadarthi, sec 140

Page #54

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
35
1
certain characteristics that really fall outside of its being. Hence it has been described as the wrong apprehension (mithyopalabdhi) in which an object is taken for what it is not (atasminstaditi pratyayaḥ). The cognitions of a shell as silver, of a rope as a snake, of a post as a man are all cases of error or wrong cognition. In each there is the cognition of an object as other than what it really is. Hence it may be said that error consists in attributing such characters to an object as are not to be really found in it (tadabhāvavati tatprakaraka). In it one universal is referred not to its own locus but to that of a different universal. In the cognition of a shell as silver, silverness is referred to a wrong locus, namely, the shell 2 Hence it is a false characterisation of the object by the negation of its real characters.
Thus erior is to be distinguished from doubt. Unlike doubt, it is not only non-valid knowledge (aprama), but is positively invalid or false knowledge (bhrama). An erroneous cognition goes beyond the state of uncertainty in doubt and carries with it a definite assertion (avadhārana or niscaya) about some presented object But, then, it is an assertion that contradicts the real nature of its object (viparitanirnaya). It is a false judgment of the real through the attribution of such characters as are excluded by it (viparitadharmādhyāropena) We become conscious of error when there is a contradiction between our cognitive and volitional experiences. Erroneous cognitions do not lead to successful activity. The cognition of silver in a piece of shell is found to be erroneous when it fails to lead up to the expected results. It is contradicted and finally sublated by the unexpected experience of failure of the activity concerned in approaching and picking it up. Actions inspired by wrong cognitions fail to realise their ends and thereby expose the invalidity of those cognitions.
1 NV, 1.1 2
2 Cf TD, p 83, TC, pp 401, 418.

Page #55

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
6. Theories of Illusion in Indian Philosophy The explanation of errors of perception bas been a perplexing question for all philosophy. The question is this : How are we to explain the false perception of silver in a shell ? Is it due to the object itself ? Or, is it due to our subjective attitude towards the object ? According to the Nyāya, while valid knowledge (pramā) is objective in the sense of being grounded in the object itself (arthajanya). all error is subjective in so far as it is due to the introduction of a certain foreign character into the object by the knowing subject (adhyāropa). In the case of the mirage, for example, there is nothing wrong in the object. “The object all the while remains what it actually is. In regard to the flickering rays of the sun, when there arises the cognition of water, there is no error in the object : it is not that the rays are not rays, nor that the flickering is not flickering; the error lies in the cognition: as it is the cognition which instead of appearing as the cognition of the flickering rays, appears as the cognition of water, i.e. as the cognition of a thing as something which it is not.”! From this it follows that there is no error in the simple apprebension (ālocana) of the object. The object as given in indeterminate (nirvikalpaka) perception consists of a number of actually present fickering rays of the sun. But on account of certain defects in the sense organ and the influence of association and memory, the given datum is misinterpreted as water in the determinate (savikalpaka) perception of it. Hence the error lies not in the indeterminate perception of the given but in the determinate perception of
it as worked up and modified by some representative Celements.?
1 NV., 1. 1. 4.
NVT., 1 1.4,

Page #56

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
The modern school of the Nyaya shows great ingenuity to explain the perceptual character of illusory experience. That in illusion there is the attribution (aropa) of a false character to a perceived fact is no doubt true. But the questions that arise are: How do we come to ascribe the false character? How again does this false character appear as something actually perceived in illusion? The Nyaya rightly points out that an illusory experience is a single perception. It is not, as Prabhakara thinks, a complex of perception and recollection with their distinction blurred by obscuration of memory. Thus when we have the illusion of silver in a shell, we no doubt attribute silverness to the shell which is not its proper locus. But at the same time it is equally doubtless that the silver is somehow perceived and not merely remembered in illusion. This has been very well pointed out by A. C. Ewing when he observes: "" The difficulty in the case of perception is not the mere fact of error, but the demand that we should hold both that what we immediately perceive is numerically identical with a physical object or a part of such an object and yet that it is quite different." To explain illusion, therefore, we have to explain its perceptual character, inst. ad of trying to explain it away.
"1
Taking the illusion of silver in a shell as an illustration, the Nyaya account comes to this. There is first the contact of sense with something present before it. Owing to some defects, the sense apprehends such general features of the thing as its brightness, etc., but fails to discern its peculiar and distinctive features. But the general features being associated with some other thing (here silver) recall the memory-images of the peculiar properties of that other thing. Through such recollection there is a sort of contact (jñānalakṣaṇa sannikarṣa) between sense and that other
1
37
Mind, April, 1930, p 149,

Page #57

38
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
thing (i.e, silver). Hence there is an actual perception of silver in the illusion.' The perceived silver is then referred to the locus (idam) or the something which is present before and perceived by sense. Hence in the illusion there is perception of both the 'this' and the 'silver,' although in different ways.? So far there seems to be nothing wrong. The error comes in and the illusion arises when the silver that is perceived elsewhere is referred as a predicate to the 'tbis' as its subject It is this determinate knowledge of the 'this' as qualified by 'silverness' (višistajñāna) that can account for a man's efforts to gain possession of the illusory object. In recognition (pratyabhijñā), in which we say 'this is that man I saw yesterday,' we see how certain presentative and representative elements combine to make up one single perception. Any ordinary valid perception also illustrates bow a given sensum combines with associated ideas to make up one percept. But while in these, the combination has its objective counterpart, in illusion the relation between the perceived' this' and 'silver' is not objectively real. It is contradicted and sublated either by a subsequent experience that corrects the illusory experience of silver and shows it to be false, or by the experience of disappointment which ensues when we take possession of it. In the first case the cognition of silver is shorn of its objective (v18ayāpahāra), and in the second case we are put in possession, not of the silver, but of the shell (phalāpahāra) Hence the error lies not in the presentations concerned in the perception but in the determination of one presentation by another given through association and memory (jātyasaṁskārāt). And since this determination results in a judgment of the object as some
1 Cf. Woodworth, Psychology, p 110 : “Memory images, then, are recalled menuations, or have more or less of the quality of sensations"
? Cf Mamatvindriya;anyatvāt jātyasaskārācca sāksātkārıtvamevobhayatra, TC, 1, p. 625.

Page #58

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
39
thing other than what it is, the Nyāya theory of error is called anyathākhyāti or...viparītakhyāti. According to it, an erroneous cognition is presentational in character and bas some basis in facts But the facts being misplaced and misrelated, error becomes a false apprehension of the real.
The above view of anyathākhyāti is common to the Nyāya-Vaiseşika. It has been accepted in the main by Kumārıla, Rāmānuja' and the Jainas. But the Bauddha, the Prābhākara Mimāmsā and Advaita Vedānta systems oppose the Nyāya view and propose different theories. Hence the Navyāyikas proceed to repudiate the other theories of error. According to the Yogācāras, there is no extramental reality, and things are only thoughts or ideas. Realty is a stream of cognitions bifurcated into a subjective and an objective series. Error consists in an illegitimate process of projection of subjective ideas as objective and extra-mental facts. All cognition of objects thus objectifies the subjective and is therefore erroneous. This view is called ātmakhyātı or jñānākārakhyāti, since it insists on the sole reality of ideas and looks upon all objects as cognitions wrongly taken for external things.
This theory, however, the Naiyāyikas object, fails to account for the facts of the case. On the theory of subjective idealism of the Yogācāras, there is no difference between knowledge, and the subject and object of know
1 Rāmānuja bas proposed an alternative theory of illusion which is distinguished from the above as satkhvät. According to it, all cognitions are relatively true and none absolutely false. The cognition of silver in a shell is true with reference to the element of silver that is present in the shell In every object of the world the elements of all other objects are present in different proportions So in the structure of a shell an element of silver is present, although the shell element preponderates in it. Hence the cogoition of silver has an objective basis, and 18 so far true But owing to certain defects of the sense organs, there 18 a distortion of the shell element, and we have the perception of silver in what is really a silver-sbell Tho perception 18 wrong, not because it is the cognition of no fact or of the upreal, but because it 18 & partial view or an imperfect knowledge of the real. (Cf. Sribhäęya, 1.11)

Page #59

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
ledge, everything being an idea only. Hence the cognition of silver should appear, not in the form of 'this is silver', but 'I am silver', which however is not the case. Then, if everything be an idea we do not know how to account for the difference between an idea and its corresponding percept. Finally, the Nyäya view, that error is the cognition of an object as what it is not, really includes the Yogācāra theory that in error the subjective is taken for the objective and is so cognised as what it is not.'
The Mādhyamika school of Bauddha philosopby negates all existence. It holds the asatkhyātr view that error consists in the manifestation of the non-existent as existent. The cognition of silver in the shell is erroneous because it manifests the non-existent silver as existent, and we become conscious of this when our first cognition of silver is contradicted by the subsequent cognition of shell. Against this it has been urged by the Naiyāyıka that the illusion of silver 19 not entirely baseless, it cannot arise out of nothing. What is absolutely non-existent can not produce even the wrong cognition of silver The illusion of silver is due to something in the nature of the shell. It occurs generally in connection with a shell and the like, but not indifferently with everything. Even if error is a cognition of the nonexistent as existent, it is the cognition of it as what it is not. Hence we have in it a case of anyathākhyāti which thus includes the asatkhyāti of the Mādhyamika. In truth, however, the utterly unreal and non-existent cannot be the object of any knowledge whatsoever.
The Advaita Vedānta puts forward the view of anirvacaniyakhyāti. This does not differ so widely from the Nyāya anyathākhyāti as may appear at first sight. While the two views agree so far as the nature and mechanism of illusory
1 NVT, pp 85 f , NM, pp 176, B45-46 ; Ibid

Page #60

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
41
perception are concerned, there is difference in one essential point. According to anirvacanīyakhyātı, there is in the illusion of silver a contact of the defective sense organ with the glittering shell and then a mental modification answering to the form of 'this object.' Now through the operation of nescience (avidyā), as aided by the past impressions of silver, revived by this object's simularity, there is the production of some inexplicable silver which lasts so long as the illusion lasts. It is neither real nor anreal, nor both real and unreal.but indefinable and indeterminable Hence in the illusion of silver there is an actual cognition of silver. The illusion is presentative in its character so far as it is connected with some silver actually present to consciousness. But while, according to the Nyāya, this presentation of silver is due to association and memory (jātyusamshärāt), to the Advaitin, it is due to the production of the 'cognised silver 'for the time being. To this the Naiyāyikas object that if the silver is actually produced, there would be no illusion but a valid perception. If it be said that the silver is supernatural (alaukika) and is erroneously cognised as natural (laukika), we have in it just a case of anyathākhyūti. If, on the other hand, the supernatural silver is cognised as supernatural, there cannot be anything wrong in the cognition, nor any practical activity in the cogniser to obtain such supernatural silver.
The Prābhākara school of the Mīmāmsā differs from all others and advocates the view of akhyāti or vivekākhyāti. According to it, error consists simply in the want of discrimination between percept and image, or between direct apprehension and memory. It is a sort of confused memory (smrtipramosa). In the case of the illusion of silver in the shell what happens is that there is first the direct perception of an object with the
1 NVT, pp 85-87 , NM , pp 187 f. 6-(1117 B)

Page #61

42
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
attribute of brightness, etc. Then through association by similarity the perceived bright object revives the image of silver. Hence the state of cognition has the dual character of percept and image, of something seen and something remembered. On account of certain abnormal conditions, the two things are not kept distinct and are allowed to fuse or coalesce, and we have the resulting cognition of silver referred to the piece of shell. When the illusion is corrected, there is no sublation of the silver but only an explicit recognition of the presentative and representative factors of the wrong cognition. The distinction between the two being cognised, there remains no confusion as to the fact of silver being only remembered and not perceived 1
1
To this theory the Naiyāyıka objects that it fails to account for the presentative character of the illusion. So long as we are under the illusion we have a consciousness of the silver as something present and perceived, and not as what was perceived before and is now only remembered. Further, there can be no activity to secure the silver unless there is a positive and determinate cognition of it. A confused knowledge cannot inspire the confidence necessary for practical activity. Non-discrimination, as mere confusion of knowledge, cannot be the ground of such actions as are generally connected with an illusory experience. Hence illusion must be a single determinate cognition of an object. All this comes out in our subsequent judgment of the illusion as it stands corrected and negated. It is in the form " what I had seen is not silver," and not what I had remembered is not silver." This clearly shows that the illusion of silver is an error of perception and not of memory. Finally, even on the akhyāti theory it must be admitted that in error
((
1 Vide Jba, Prabhakara School of Purvamīmāmsã, pp. 28-32, Sadholal Lectures on Nyaya, Ch. III,

Page #62

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE 43 there is a cognition of the object as what it is not. This will mean that akhyāti is but a form of anyathākhyāti. Hence the Naiyāyıkas conclude that anyathākhyāti is the most satisfactory theory of error. It gives us all that the other theories require, but is not vitiated by their faults.?
Among the theories of perceptual error or illusion as explained above that of the Nyāya seems to be more acceptable than any other. For the Bauddha idealist error consists in the objective appearance of subjective ideas. But this cannot explain the distinction between true and false perception. In both, the object of knowledge is not really other than knowledge or an idea, although it may appear to be so. Hence both must be equally wrong. Further, there being not bing but ideas, one idea may be mistaken for another, but not for that which is no idea at all, i.e. for extra-mental object. Perceptual errors cannot, therefore, be explained on the theory of subjective idealism of the Yogācāra type. “For," as Ewing says, “even in error we are concerned not with our ideas but with external reality,...error is not a mere dwelling on our ideas but an unsuccessful cognising of objects.'' ?
The Prābhākara Mimānnsakas treat error as the subjective appearance of an object. In it an idea or image of the mind is referred to a given object so as to become one with it. This explanation of perceptual error was once generally accepted in European philosophy. According to most of the Western systems, in illusory perception a real object is modified by subjective factors supplied by the mind through association, memory, emotion, etc. Among modern thinkers, Lossky holds that 'falsity is the subjective appearance of the object since foreign elements can be introduced into the object only by the knowing subject.' 8
1 NVT., & NM., ibid. 2 Mind, April, 1931), pp. 138-39. 3 The Intuitive Basis of Knowledge, pp 227 f., 267 1.

Page #63

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Bosanquet only puts the matter in objective terms when he says that 'in falsehood something actual pretends to be something else, or, like a false coin, has not the significance wbich it claims.'' But while this may be accepted as a general definition of error, it does not explain how in perceptual error certain subjective factors, ideas or images, are actually felt as perceived, out there in space. It cannot be said that we do not really perceive the illusory object but only imagine that we do perceive it. Why should we doubt the verdict of experience here if we do not doubt it elsewhere? And experience clearly tells us that we do perceive the illusory object.
To explain the perceptual character of illusory experience, the Advaita Vedānta supposes the temporary production of certain positive entities of an indeterminate order (anirvacanīyā prātıbhāsihi sattā). These are neither real nor unreal, but actual facts. The illusory silver is not real, because it is contradicted by a closer experience. It is not unreal, because it is perceived as an actual fact so long as the illusion lasts. Hence it is an appearance which is undeterminable as real or unreal, and is ultimately due to avidyā or ignorance. But how ignorance can produce a positive entity and then make us perceive it as an existent fact is left unexplained. Further, as Alexander has pointed out, 'error does not give us a new and more shadowy being than the spatio-temporal reality, but is the world of determinate being misread'? Moreover, if in illusion certain positive entities are really produced and perceived, we should not be having an illusion, but a true perception.
According to the Nyāya, illusion is a misplaced fact. All the factors of an illusory perception are real and perceived facts, but they are brought into a wrong relation. In the
1 Logic, Vol I, pp 67, 70 2 Alexander, Space, Time and Derty, Vol I, P 202

Page #64

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
45
illusory perception of silver, for example, we have an actual perception of a certain locus and some silver, both as real facts. The error arises because the silver perceived at a different time and place, is related to the time and place occupied by the perceived locus, namely, the shell. Some modern realists give a similar explanation of perceptual error. According to Alexander, 'error consists in wrongly combining the elements of reality Everything which is illusory in the illusion does actually exist in correspondence with the mental activity through which it is revealed; but the personal character of the activity dislocates the real object from its place in things, and refers it to a context to which it does not belong. So when I fancy a horse's body, and complete it with a man's head, the head exists in reality, but not upon a horse's body.'' To quote Alexander's own words “Some of our objects are illusory; they are real so far as they are perspectives of space-time, but they contain an element introduced by our personality, and do not belong where they seem to belong ” ? This however does not explain how illusory objects can be perceived at the time and place, to which they do not belong. How can we perceive here and now something which exists elsewhere? W P. Montague tries to explain this by some distortion of the real object in producing its effect on the brain. He thinks that the so-called sensory illusions result from certain physical or peripherally physiological distortions of the real object underlying them. This means that illusory perceptions depend on certain objective and real conditions in the same way in which true perceptions are so conditioned. E. B. Holt goes íurther than this and establishes the objectivity of error. He thinks that all errors are cases of contradiction or contrariety The perception of silver is
1 Essays in Critical Realism, pp 135-36 2 Space, Time and Derty, Vol II, p 249 3 The New Realism, pp 288-92

Page #65

46
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
illusory because it is contradicted by the experience of the saine object as shell and not silver. But neither the experience of sbell nor that of silver is subjective. Botb of the contradictory experiences are objective, since the real object itself has contradictory characters. Holt says that " the case of hallucinations is paralleled by such cases as that of mirrored space, wherein sundry mirrored objects occupy the same spatial positions as are occupied by other real' objects situated behind the mirror." Hence we are to say that error consists in entertaining mutually contradictory propositions, of wbich one may be preferable, but none subjective, because the world is full of such contradictory propositions. On this view, however, the distinction between truth and error becomes insignificant. The same thing may, with equal truth, be called a shell or silver The Nyāya does not go so far as to say that contradictory characters belong to the same thing or that contradictory propositions are equally objective. It is not the case that the same real has the contrary characters of shellness and silverness. It has really one character, namely, shellness. But the silver is also a perceived fact. Hence the crucial question is: How can the silver, which exists elsewhere, be presented here and now ? The Nyāya explains this by jñānalakṣaṇāpratyāsattı which means a kind of sense-object contact brought about by the impressional revival of the past experience of an object. Hence there is a jñānalakşana perception of the silver. As we shall see more fully hereafter, the perception of the silver is a case of what is called “complication ” by some Western psychologists. In it the sensation of a particular bright colour calls up, by its previous association, the impression of silver and we have the perception of silver in the shell. The silver does not appear as an idea or image of the mind, but is a content
1
Ibid, pp 369-70.

Page #66

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE 47 presented by the sensation of bright colour. Still, the perception of the silver is illusory because the character of silverness does not really co-exist with the given sensation of bright colour. It is the presentation of silver in a wrong relation and so an illusion.
7. Hypothetical Argument (tarka) Tarka is a type of implicative argument by which we may test the validity of the conclusion of any reasoning (or of any judgment). Here we ask whether any contradıctions would follow if the given conclusion be accepted as true or rejected as false. If there is any contradiction in accepting it as true we have no doubt that it is invalid. But if in rejecting it as false we are involved m a contradiction, there can be no doubt that the conclusion must have been valıd.
The process of reasoning in tarka consists in the deduction of an untenable proposition from a certain position (anıstaprasanga). This has the logical effect of exposing the invalidity of that position and thereby lending support to the counter-position. Thus with regard to the inference of fire from the perception of smoke, there are two alternative positions, namely, that the smoky object is fiery, and that it is not fiery From the latter position we deduce the proposition that the object is not smoky, which is contradicted by our direct experience. This is expressed in the form of a hypothetical proposition, viz. 'if the object be fireless, it must be smokeless.' Hence tarka validates the inference of fire through the deduction of an inadmissible proposition from the contrary hypothesis. The proposition is a deduction from the hypothesis in the sense that it follows from it according to a general rule. It is a general rule that whatever bas a mark (the vyāpya), has that which it 18 a mark of (the vyāpaka). Now the absence of fire is a

Page #67

48
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
mark of the absence of smoke. Hence if it be said that there is absence of fire in the object, we cannot resist the conclusion that there is absence of smoke in it, 1.e. it 18 smokeless. Such a conclusion, however, is contradicted by direct observation. Hence it is that tarka has been defined by the modern Naiyāyikas as the process of deducing from a mark that of which it is a mark, but is false (vyāpyāngikārena anistavyāpahaprasañanai ūpah) ?
When the proposition establisherl by any method of knowledge (pamāna) is doubted or disputed, we should have recourse to tai ka to lay the doubt or end the dispute. In tarka we take the contradictory of the proposition in the form of a hypothesis and readily see how that hypothesis leads to a contradiction Hence tarka se ves as the limit to doubt (sanlāraih) Since, however, the invalidity of a position is not a ground of the validity of its opposite, tarka is an aid or auxiliary (sahakārī) to pramāna, but not pramāna by itself. Thus when on seeing a talile we say:
there is no book on the table, we have a judgment of perception expressed in a proposition If anyone doubts the truth of this proposition we may effectively dispel it by an argument like this “If there were any book on the table, it would have been perceived like the table; but it is not so perceived; therefore it does not exist.' But to argue in this way is not to know the non-existence of a book on the table. The knowledge of the book's non-existence is a matter of perception according to the Naiyāyikas. Similarly, to argue that if the object be fireless it must be smokeless,' is not to know that it is fiery. The knowledge that the smoky object is fiery is acquired by means of inference from smoke as a mark of fire. The hypothetical argument only confirms this inference. Hence tarka does not ori. ginate true knowledge, i.e. is not a pramāņa, although it
1 TB., p. 82.

Page #68

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
49
contirms a pramāṇa which brings about the knowledge in question, i.e. 18 auxiliary to the pramāņa (pramānānugrāhaka).
There are five kinds of tarka. These are called ātmāśraya, anyonyāśraya, cakraka, anavasthā and tadanyabādhitārthaprasanga. In all of them the logical form and character of the argument is the same, and they serve the same end of testing the validity of some reasoning or judgment.
Ātmāśraya 18 an argument that brings out the inconsistency involved in a reasoning which seeks to prove that anything is dependent on itself in respect of its origin or duration or cognition The argument may be stated in this form 'If A is the cause of A, it must be different from itself, because the cause is different from the effect.'
Anyonyāśraya is an argument which brings out the contradiction involved in the judgment that two things are reciprocally dependent on each other. The argument may be stated thus: “If A depends on B, and B depends on A, A cannot depend on B.' To say that ‘B depends on A'is virtually to deny that 'A depends on B.' The idea of reciprocal dependence, which is so much favoured by some Western thinkers, is rejected by the ancient Indian thinkers as self-contradictory and absurd.
The third type of tarka is called cakraka. It consists in exposing the fallacy of a reasoning in which a thing is made to explain the pre-supposition of its own pre-supposition (tada peksyapeksyapekṣitva). If A is pre-supposed in B and B is pre-supposed in C, then to explain A by C is to reason in a circle, because C by its inherent limitations leads us back to A. Starting from A we are referred to C as the ground of its explanation, but to explain C we are
1 TB ,P 32. 2 NSV , 1.1. 40.
7-(1117 B)

Page #69

50
brought back to A as its ultimate ground or basis. Here the curve of explanation makes a complete circle in so far as our thought returns to its own starting-point through two or more intermediaries. Thus if we admit that perception is pre-supposed in inference and the latter is pre-supposed in testimony, then to prove perception by testimony is to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. This may well be exposed by a tarka like the following: If preception depends on testimony, it must be independent of senseobject contact '
"
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The fourth type of tarka is called anavastha. It is an argument which brings out the absurdity of an indiscriminate extension of the fallacy of undue assumption. Here we expose the fallacy involved in the indefinite regress of thought from point to point without any final resting ground (ar yarasthitaparampararopa) There is an infinite regress of thought (anavastha) when in an explanation we make use of an indefinite number of principles, each of which pre-supposes its next. Here our thought moves not in a circle, but up a staircase, as it were. Thus if we explain A by B, B by C, C by D, and so on ad infinitum, we do not really explain anything. Or, if we try to deduce the ground of inference from inference we are logically committed to the fallacy of infinite regress. The fallacy may be exposed by a tarka like this 'If inference depends on inference for its ground, no inference is possible.'
The last type of tarka is called tadanyabādhitarthaprasanga or pramānabādhitārthaprasanga. It is an argument which indirectly proves the validity of a reasoning by showing that the contradictory of its conclusion is absurd. This may be done by opposing the contradictory of the conclusion to some fact or some universal law. If, therefore, its contradictory be false, the original conclusion must be true and based on a valid reasoning. Take, for example,

Page #70

NATURE AND FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE 51 the inference : 'Whatever is smoky is fiery; this object is smoky ; therefore this object is fiery. If this conclusion be false, then its contradictory, this object is not fiery' should be true. But the latter proposition is found to be absurd by the following tarka. If in the case of this object smoke is not related to fire, then it cannot be an effect of fire. But it must be due either to fire or to not-fire There is no third alternative here. We do not find it to arise out of not-fire Hence if it is not due to fire, it must be either an uncaused effect or a non-existent phenomenon The first alternative contradicts the law of universal causation and is therefore untenable. The second alternative becomes self-contradictory, since it commits us to the proposition that the smoky object is smokeless For, if A (smoke) be a mark of B (not-fire), and B (not-fire) were a mark of C (not-smoke), then A (smoke) would be a mark of ( (not-smoke) In view of such absurdities involved in the contradictory of the original conclusion we must reject it as false and accept the original conclusion as true and as based on a valid inference.
It is to be observed, however, that the Nyāya division of tarka into five different kinds is logically unsound This division has reference to the different kinds of reasoning which may be tested by an argument like tarka. But the classification of tarka should not be based on the kinds of reasoning that may be tested by it, because these are unlimited and quite external to the nature of tarka as a type of argument. A classification of tarka must be based on the logical character of the arguments employed in different cases. Now having regard to its logical character, we find that tarka is fundamentally of one kind. In every case in which it is employed it has the form of an inconsistent argument (anıştaprasanga) developed out of the conclusion of a given reasoning or its contradictory. If

Page #71

52
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
this inconsistent argument arises out of the conclusion of the given reasoning, we are convinced that the given reasoning is invalid. If it arises out of the contradictory of the conclusion of a given reasoning, we know for certain that the original conclusion and the given reasoning are valid. As to its logical character, therefore, tarka seems to correspond to the antilogism in Western logic. According to some Western logicians,' the antilogism is an inconsistent triad of propositions by which the validity of any syllogism may be determined. A syllogism is proved to be valid if by combining the contradictory of its conclusion with the original premises we get an inconsistent triad. If, however, the resulting triad is consistent, the original syllogism is invalid. It is also admitted by these Western logicians that the inconsistent triad, like the Naıyayıka's tarka, is not itself an argument. It should however be remarked here that the logical form of the argument in tarka does not exactly correspond to that of the antilogism. Tarka is put into the form of an implicative argument, while the antilogism into that of a categorical syllogism. Again, tarka may be employed to test the validity of any reasoning, inferential or otherwise, and it may be developed out of a given conclusion or its contradictory with or without the original premises.
1 Cf Chapman and Henle, The Fundamentals of Logic, pp 90 and 102.

Page #72

CHAPTER III
VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD (PRAMA AND PRAMAŅA)
1 Definition of pramă or valid knowledge
6
In Chapter II we have considered the different forms of non-valid knowledge (aprama) Here we are to consider the nature of valid knowledge (prama) and the general character of the method of valid knowledge (pramāņa) It may appear to some that the distinction between valid and non-valid or invalid knowledge is not only unnecessary but incorrect. Knowledge, in its strict sense, means a true belief that carries with it an assurance of its truth.1 Hence knowledge is always true. It is a tautology to speak of valid knowledge' and a contradiction to speak of nonvalid or invalid knowledge.' The latter is no knowledge at all, since it does not stand for any belief which is true and which gives us an assurance of its truth. When we speak of pramā as valid knowledge, we do not forget the strict sense of the word 'knowledge.' But the word 'knowledge' has been used in a narrow as well as a wide sense. Hence in view of the facts that the Nyaya-Vaiseṣikas use jñānam in a very wide sense, that they make a distinction between true and false jñānam, and that pramā implies something more than knowledge in its strict sense, we propose to use the phrase ' valid knowledge' for pramā. As however we have already said, the word may be taken to mean prama according to the context.
'
knowledge
1 Cf. Russell, Problems of Philosophy, p. 217.
"

Page #73

04
54
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Pramā has been defined by the Nyāya as true presentational knowledge (yathārthānubhava). It is a definite and an assured (asamdigdha) cognition of an object, which is also true and presentational in character. Hence it is that pramā excludes all kinds of non-valid knowledge, such as memory, doubt, error, hypothetical argument (tarka), etc Memory is excluded because it is not presentational (anubhava). Doubt and the rest are excluded either because they are not true or because they are not definite and assured cognitions It appears from this that pramā has three main characteristics, namely, assuredness, truth and presentativeness.
As to the first, we may explain it by saying that pramā or valid knowledge is a definite categorical assertion as distinguished from all indefinite, problematic and hypothetical knowledge. In pramā there is a feeling of assurance or conviction in what is known. That is, valid knowledge is always connected with a firm belief. All assurances or firm beliefs, however, are not pramā In illusion (bhrama) we firmly believe in what is false. Pramā implies something more than a subjective certainty.
Hence the second characteristic of pramā is that it is true or unerring (yathārtha) knowledge. But what makes knowledge true (yathūrtha)? In answer to this we are told that knowledge is true when it is not contradicted by its object (arthāvyabhıcārī) This means that knowledge 18 true when it reveals its object with that nature and attribute which abide in it despite all changes of time, place and other conditions What is once true of an object is always true of it, no matter what its position in space and time may be. More definitely speaking, to know a thing truly is to know it as characterised by what is a characteristic of it (tadvatı tatprakāraka). We bave the truth about
1 NVT , pp. 5,21.

Page #74

VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD 55 a thing when we judge it to be such-and-such, and it is such-and-such, i.e. as we determine it by qualities which the thing does in fact possess. Hence, according to the Nyāya, the truth of knowledge consists in its correspondence to facts.
So far pramā may be said to mean the same thing as knowledge in its narrow sense. Like the latter, it is a true belief which is connected with an assurance or conviction of its truth But the Nyāya goes further and adds a third qualification to pramā. According to it, pramā is not only a true and an assured cognition, but also a presentational cognition (anubharu) Otherwise, memory will have to be regarded as pramā. Memory-knowledge is both true and definitely believed to be true. Still it is not pramā, since it is not presentative but representative cognition. What then is anubhava ? To say, as some Naiyāyıkas have said, that anubhava is knowledge other than memory is just to beg the question. But the matter has not been left there. We are told by others that anubhava is knowledge of given facts as distinguished from those that are imagined or supplied by the mind. Or, it may be said that anubhava is knowledge which is grounded in and due to the object itself (arthajanya). Or again, it may be said that anubhava is a cognition that follows uniformly and immediately on the presence of its special cause. This means that a cognition is presentational if it is not separated from the existence of its unique cause by any interval of time As such, memory cannot be called anubhaba, because its object is not a given fact, or because it is not
1 Cf Lossky, The Inturtive Basis of Knowledge, p. 227 “We have acquired truth only when the differentiated appearance is con posed entirely of elements present on the ob,ect itself and nothing has been introduced into it from without."
2 Tattvamapäropitam rūpam, tasya nanamanubhavaḥ, Saptapadarthi, Bec 64.

Page #75

56
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
due to any influence of the object, or because the impressions (saņskāra), out of which it arises, are not immediately antecedent to it in every case. On the other hand, perception, inference, comparison (upamāna) and testimony are all cases of anubhava or presentational knowledge. That sense-perception is so, will be generally admitted. But inference and the rest also are, according to the Nyāya, presentational cognitions. Even prātıbha or intuitive knowledge of future events is regarded as a perception due to the object itself. The Nyāya holds that each of these is a cognition of some objective facts and is conditioned by those facts. Memory being only a reproduction of past experience cannot be said to be due to its object and is, therefore, other than presentational knowledge (anubhava).'
Hence the Nyāya definition of pramā or valid knowledge comes to this. Pramā is a presentational cognition (anubhara), in which there are a characterisation, in thought, of the object as it is in reality (yathārtha), and a definite assurance of its being objectively valid (asardigdha).
2. Definition of pramāņa or the method of knowledge
Pramāņa derivatively means the instrument of valid knowledge (pramāyāḥ karanam). Hence, generally speaking, we may say that pramāna is the means or source of right knowledge. It is that which gives us valid knowledge, and only valid knowledge of objects. So it has been said : “ There cannot be any right understanding of things except by means of pramāņa. A subject arrives at the valid knowledge of objects by means of pramāņa, for the existence and nature of objects are to be ascertained only by such
1 NM., p 23; TR & 88., pp. 9-11

Page #76

VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD 57 cognitions as are based on pramāņa.” Again, we are told : “ Pramāna is the cause of valid cognition of objects, inasmuch as it gives us a knowledge of objects as they really are and exist in themselves "1 “ Pramāņa bas a real correspondence with objects, in the sense that the nature and attributes of objects, as revealed by pramāņa, are uncontradictorily true of them, despite all variations in time, place and other conditions."' ?
So far we are given to understand, not wbat a pramāņa exactly is, but what the general character of pramāna must be. We do not go beyond such general description of pramuna when we are told by others that " pramāna is that which is invariably related to pramā,” or, “ to be pramāna is never to be disconnected from a knower possessing right knowledge " 3 All this means only that pramāņa is the karaņa or means of pramā or valıd knowledge. What then is a karana and how is it constituted ? In order to answer the first part of this question we should follow the distinction between karana and kārana, means and cause.
A cause has been defined as the invariable and unconditional antecedent of an effect (ananyathāsiddhaniyatapūrvabhāvī). Conversely, an effect is the invariable and unconditional consequent. Or, an effect is what begins to be and thereby negates its antecedent non-existence. There are three kinds of causes, namely, the constituent (samavāyi), the non-constituent (asamavāyi) and the efficient (niinitta). The constituent causes is the substratum in wbich the effect inheres, e.g. the threads of the cloth. The non-constituent cause is the mediate cause of an effect. It determines the
1 NB, 1.11,4 2 29 2 NVT, abid 3 Sarvadorsanasamgraha, Chapter on Nysya Philosophy, Kusumāñjalt, 4-5
? This implies that the relation between cause and effect is a one-one relation, there being only one cause for one effect and one effect for one cause It thus excludes the idea of a plurality of causes as endorsed by common sense and ordinary text-books of logic

Page #77

58
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
effect only in so far as it stands as an inherent attribute of the constituent cause. Its causal efficiency therefore is mediated through its intimate relation to the material or constituent cause. In relation to the effect' cloth,' the contact of the threads is the non-constituent cause. So also the colour of the threads is the mediate cause of the colour of cloth. The efficient cause is different from both the constituent and non-constituent causes It is not merely the passive substratum in which the effect inheres, nor any nberent attribute of the substratum that indirectly letermines the effect Rather, it is the agency that acts on both the constituent and non-constituent causes and makes bem produce the effect. In relation to the cloth, the loom ind such other agents constitute the efficient cause. It is he efficient cause that is to be regarded as karana or means, because it is principally concerned in bringing about the
ffect. While the first two are general causes or rather conditions of the effect, the last is the actually operative Pause of it It is the special cause, or simply, the cause of the effect.
Now reverting to the definition of pramāna, we may say that it is the specific cause of valid knowledge as distin. guished from its general causes or universal conditions. Pramāņa is the unique operative cause (karana) of right knowledge (pramā). It does not, however, follow from this that pramāna is a simple concept denoting a single thing. On the other hand, we are told that it denotes a complex of many conditions which are partly physical and partly psychical or mental in nature In fact, any instance of knowledge involves a long and complicated process which is either physical and physiological or mental or both. The perception of a jar, for example, is conditioned by physica contact between the eyes and the object as well as by inter
1 Cf TB., pp 2 f and T8., pp. 35 f.

Page #78

VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD 59 nal operations of the visual organ, its contact with manas or the mind, and that of the latter with the soul. In inferen. tial and verbal knowledge there are such specific psychic conditions as the knowledge of a universal relation and understanding of the meaning of a proposition and so on. Hence pramāna is taken to mean the entire complex or collocation of all the specific physical and psychical conditions (bodhābodhasvabhāvā sāmaqrī) that are actually operative in bringing about valid and assured cognition of objects (pramā). This, however, does not include such universal conditions of all knowledge as subject and object, time and space, etc., within the compass of pramāna or the method of knowledge Hence the final definition of pramāna is that it is the complex of specific conditions, other than the subject and the object, which does not normally fail to produce valid knowledge 1
The Vaiseșika system defines pramana as the unique operative cause (karana) of both true presentational knowledge and memory ? It would take memory as a distinct pramāna or method of knowledge libe perception and infer ence. The Nyāya restriction of pramāna to the ground o presentational knowledge has been set aside and memory has been rightly shown to be an independent method o. knowledge by the Vaišesikas.'
The Jainas also take pramāna in a general sense so as to make it applicable to both immediate presentational knowledge (pratyakşa) and mediate knowledge (paroksa) so far as they are true. Under mediate knowledge they include sense-perception, inference, memory and recognition. In this general sense, pramāna is knowledge that reveals both itself and its object in a way that is not liable to contradiction.
1 Cf NM, p 15 2 surtyanubhavagadbāraṇam pramākaranam pramānam, TK, p. 6. 3 Vide infra, Bk V, Ch. XX, Sec. 4.

Page #79

60
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The Advaita Vedanta defines pramana as the operative cause (karana) of prama or true knowledge. It defines pramā in two ways. First, pramā means knowledge that has both the characteristics of novelty and uncontradictedness (anadhigatābādhita). This means that true knowledge is uncontradicted and original, .e. gives us new information. Secondly, pramā is taken to mean simply uncontradicted knowledge of objects The result is that prama is made to exclude or include memory according as we accept the one or the other way of defining pramā or true knowledge.1
3. Nyaya criticism of the Bauddha vicus of pramāna
It has been generally admitted by all the schools of Indian philosophy that pramāna is what gives pramā and that prama is true knowledge. But there is much difference of opinion among them as to the nature of the truth, which each of them claims for its pramāna.
The Buddhists generally take the truth of knowledge to consist in its capacity to produce successful activity Pramā or true knowledge (samyagjñāna) is harmonious in the sense that there is no conflict between the cognition of an object and the practical activity to obtain it. In fact all knowledge is meant for some action. We seek knowledge because we want to act effectively in relation to other things. Hence pramāna or the method of knowledge fulfils its function when it shows an object in such a way as to enable us to act successfully in relation to it. In short, pramā is practically useful knowledge, and pramana is the source of such knowledge.2
To this the Nyaya objects that practical utility (arthasiddhi) does not constitute the truth of any knowledge.
1 VP, Ch I
2 NBT., Ch. I.

Page #80

VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD
If it did, the distinction between true and false knowledge would be hard to maintain. The Buddhists suppose that a knowledge is true when it is such presentation (pradarśaka) of an object as leads to the actual attainment (prapaka) of it. On this view, all inferences become invalid in so far as the object of inference is not actually presented to senses. Perception may be said to present an object, but it cannot lead to the attainment of the presented object If the object be a sensum, it must be fleeting on the Bauddha theory of momentariness (kṣanikavāda). It cannot be made to wait and persist in existence, so that our subsequent activity may put us in possession of it. If however the object be an ideatum or a cogitable entity (adhyavaseya), then for the Buddhist, it is no reality Lut a fiction (kalpanā), and we cannot speak of any attainment of it. Further, if with the Buddhist we accept the pragmatist conception of truth and say that whatever is practically useful is true, we must admit that all knowledge about the past and the future is untrue, since it is not connected with any present practical activity. So also with regard to the knowledge that is connected with no activity but the absence of all activity, .e. the attitude of indifference towards the object of knowledge. Some knowledge may involve a tendency towards what is pleasurable, and some a tendency away from what is painful. But there is also a knowledge of what is neutral (upekṣaniya), with regard to which we remain indifferent. Such knowledge may be as valid as any other, of which the Buddhists can speak, although it is not connected with any useful practical activity. Finally, with the pragmatist definition of true knowledge (pramā), the Buddhists cannot but admit the validity of memory and savikalpaka perception, since both of them have great practical utility and both lead up to the attainment of their respective objects.1
1 NM., pp, 23 f., TR, pp 14 f.
61

Page #81

62
NYAIA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The realistic schools of Bauddha Philosophy, namely, the Sautrāntika and the Vaibhāṣika, define prama as consisting in the identity of content between a cognition and the cognitum. A cognition becomes valid when it has the same content as the object cognised by it. The proper function of pramāna is to give a true knowledge of objects. But that gives a true congnition of the object which determines the cognition in question to have the same form and structure, in which the object exists, so as to give it the character of objectness (sayata). The sense organs, however, which are generally supposed to be the organs of knowledge (jñānakarana) do not determine our cognitions to have the same content with the objects cognised by them. The cognition of blue colour is not certainly due to the action of the eyes, for the same eyes are operative even in the cognition of colours other than blue. It is the blue content of the object that determines our cognition to be a cognition of blue colour. The content of the object being impressed on our cognition gives the same content to it, and thereby reveals the object itself as having that content. Therefore, the objective datum (arthākāra) is the pramāna or the source of our knowledge of the object, inasmuch as it is the given datum that determines the object as well as our knowledge of it one way or the other. The content of the object is thus both the ground and the product of knowledge, the means and the end of the process of knowledge. It should not be supposed that there is a contradiction in the same thing being the content of both the object and its knowledge. For here the object is only the object of knowledge and the knowledge is a determination of the object itself. When a free is known as simsapa, the nature of the simsapa is the content of both the tree and our knowledge of it. It is the object of our knowledgeas
"6
1 Visayasarūpyam sakārasya vijñanasya, NVT., p. 20.

Page #82

VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD
63 well as the ground of a discriminative cognition of the object in question. Hence the content of an object (arthākāra) is pramāņa in so far as it establishes an identity between the object and our knowledge of it.” 1
The Nyāya rejects also the above view of the Bauddha realist. To it, the view that the content of the object is the ground of its knowledge because it ensures correspondence between the two, is not intelligible. It cannot mean that the content of the object reproduces itself as the content of cognition, for the same thing can not act as a cause in relation to itself Nor can it mean that the object's content is revealed by its cognition The content being identical with the cognition need not be revealed or manifested by another act of cognition. Vor again can it be taken to mean that the object's content is what discriminates a cognition and thereby produces a discriminative knowledge of itself. The content and the cognition being identical the one cannot discriminate the other. The law of discrimination requires that the discriminator must be somehow different from the discriminated. When I discriminate a blue colour, I am obviously different from and stand over against the colour which is an object of my thought. All discrimination must take place in this way. The same thing canuot therefore be both the object of knowledge and the content of knowledge ?
The Nyāya criticism of the Bauddha view of correspondence between knowledge and its object contains an element of important truth. It has the effect of showing that the correspondence between knowledge and its object has no meaning when, as on the Bauddha view, the two become fused together as one stuff It is meaningless to speak of correspondence between knowledge and its object, if we take them as identicals or absolute similars. Correspondence
1 Vide NVTP., pp 152-54 (Bib. Ind. Edn.) 2 Vide NVTP., pp 177 f.

Page #83

64
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE between cognition and its object is intelligible when each of them bas certain conditions and characters that are wanting in the other, i e. when there are distinctive differences between them. Hence we cannot accept the view of the new realists' that the content of knowledge, that which lies in or before the mind when knowledge takes place, 18 numerically identical with the thing known, and is not in a class by itself. This means that things, when consciousness is had of them, become themselves contents of consciousness and the same things figure both in the so-called external world and in the manifold which introspection reveals Thus objects literally and actually enter into the mind, and not subjective facts like cognitions or ideas.' On this view, the distinction between knowledge and its object or between truth and error becomes meaningless.
The Bauddha idealists, namely, the Yogācāras give another definition of pramāņa. According to them, consciousness (vijñāna) as the principle of self-manifestation is the source of all knowledge (pramāna) 2 Having no determinations in itself, consciousness comes to have certain determinate contents in order to manifest itself and thereby gives us knowledge of a world of objects. A pramāna is that which manifests objects, but manifestation as a conscious process can belong only to that which is intelligent and conscious. The sense organs being unintelligent and unconscious cannot have the power of conscious manifestation. Hence the intellect itself is to be recognised as pramāņa by virtue of its intelligent nature and capacity of manifestation. It has neither any permanent subject as its locus nor any objects that are external to and independent of it. It is the intellect that accounts for both the subjective and objective aspects of experience. With its beginningless tendencies conscious
1 Cf. The New Realism pp 34-35
Vijñá nasyaivādākārasyātmanåtmaprakābanasamarthyam, NVT, P 20. I NVTP., p. 155.

Page #84

VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD
65 ness is manifested in two series, namely, the objective, consisting of percepts or object-ideas, and the subjective, consisting of perceptions or subject-ideas. We need not posit the real existence of objects outside of consciousness. Consciousness may be regarded as manifesting both itself and the so-called objects from within itself. The series of external objects, though not ultimately real, is yet set up by consciousness for the sake of practical activity through the influence of beginningless desires and impressions (vāsanā) that are inherent in every finite mind. The diversified contents of experience arise out of the continuous operation of desire, and their bulurcation into the subject-object series is the result of the will to live and act. “As there are ultimately no objects or perceptibles other than the intellect, the intellect itself is to be recognised as manifesting itself and is its own perceptible, luminous with its own light, lıke light" i The intellect or consciousness, therefore, is both pramā and pramāna, the ground of knowledge and the attained knowledge, since it is the cause of manifestation and the object manifested in knowledge
As against the Bauddha idealists, the Naiyāyikas point out that the definition of pramāna as the power of selfmanifestation in the nature of consciousness is untenable. A capacity or power is always a tendency to do something not yet accomplished. But self-manifestation, being a fait accompli inherent in the very nature of consciousness, cannot be said to be the effect or product of any power or capacity. Again, consciousness, as pramāna, being the ground of the cognition of objects, can not at the same time become the objects of cognition. One conscious state may become object for another state of consciousness, but the same consciousness can not be both the cognition of object and the object of cognition. The Yogācāras Lowever take the same
1 Sarvadarśanasangraha, Chapter on Bauddha pbilosopby.

Page #85

66
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
consciousness as cause and effect, means and result of the process of knowledge. But it is absurd to speak of the same thing as the subject and the object, the knower and the known.'
The force of the Naiyāyika's objection against the Yogācāra view of pramāņa lies in its insistence on a fundamental difference between knowledge or consciousness and its object. Knowledge as manifestation presupposes some object that is manifested by it. As against all idealism the modern realists of the West point out that experience or percipi presupposes existence or esse. For the Naiyāyikas experience or knowledge presupposes some object which may be mental or physical, existent or non-existent. Hence it is meaningless to speak of knowledge as self-manifestation, i.e. a manifestation of itself as object and by itself as subject.
4. Nyāya criticism of the Mimāmsā and Sāmkhya views
In the Bhātta Mīmāṁsā, pramā or true knowledge is defined as primary and original knowledge (anadhigata). Hence pramāṇa is that which gives us new knowledge, i.e. a true cognition of objects of which we have had no knowledge in the past. Every case of knowledge, if it is to be of any value, should be original in character. It implies a new step, by which we advance from the known to what is not yet known. Real knowledge is a synthetic process adding new contents to the old stock of knowledge. Pramāņi is the means of acquiring knowledge, and so must lead to the acquisition of such knowledge as is not yet attained but is still to be acquired. If the objects are already known, there can be no necessity of acquiring a knowledge of them. The method of knowledge, therefore, must be concerned in knowing what has not been previously
1 NVT., p. 21; NM., p. 16.

Page #86

VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD
67
known. It follows from this that memory (smộtz) cannot be pramā or true knowledge, in so far as it is not a new experience but the resuscitation of some old experience. It has no new contents but refers only to the already acquired contents of knowledge.
Here the Naiyāyikas point out that the definition of pramā, as knowledge which has the characteristics of truth and novelty (yāthārthya and anadhiyatatva), is too narrow. It excludes many cases of knowledge which are undoubtedly valid but do not refer to absolutely new objects. Eternal objects, such as space, time, soul, God, etc., cannot be said to be wholly unknown to us. We consider them to be eternal because their non-existence at any time cannot be proved. These have a necessary existence both for our thought and the things of the world. Our present knowledge of such objects comes to us as necessary knowledge. Once we have such knowledge we cannot say either that the objects had no existence before or that we had no knowledge of them prior to this. Rather we think that we had an implicit knowledge of the objects, whatever may be the degree of its clearness or distinctness. They are a priori like Kant's categories of the understanding. As Pringle Pattison says: “Mathematical truths, as soon as we realise them, are seen to be necessary, and we seem to have known them always.'' 2 Plato supposes that our knowledge of them is a recollection. Without going so far it may be said that we have an a priori knowledge of eternal entities in the same way in which Russell & shows we have an a priori knowledge of general principles. Nevertheless, they may be better known or cognised by perception, inference and testimony. But, on the Bhātţa view, no knowledge about
1 Yathārthamagrbītagrābu'ñánam pramåņamiti, SD, P 45. 7 The Idea of Immortality, pp. 46-47. 3 Problems of Philosophy, Cb. VII.

Page #87

68
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
these eternal principles can be valid, since it cannot be knowledge of what was not at all known before. Further, our knowledge of ordinary objects is, more often than not, a knowledge of what was previously known. But that does not make them less valid than the most valid knowledge we can have.
Again, the validity of pratyabhijñā or recognition, as a form of knowledge, becomes inexplicable. To recognise a thing is to know it as what was once known before. In it the object that is now perceived is directly felt as the same thing that was perceived before. We have, for example, the judgment 'this is that man whom I saw yesterday'. The 'this' of the present perception is identified with the 'that' of past perception. Recognition cannot, therefore, be a knowledge of what was not knownStill all men including tbe Bhāttas, admit that recognition is form of pramā or true knowiedge But consistency requires tbat we must either give up the idea of novelty (anadhigatatra) as a characteristic of pramā or say that recognition (pratyabhijñā) is not true knowledge, 1.e. Is apramā. In fact, however, no knowledge is made true or false by reason simply of its originality or unoriginality The truth of knowledge does not depend on the newness of its object.
In the case of what is called dhārāvāhıkajñāna or persistent knowledge, the Bhātta definition of pramā obviously fails. When the same thing is known by a man for some time there is a continuous series of cognitions with regard to it. Here all the cognitions, which succeed the first and constitute the continuous series together with it, refer to the same thing that has been previously known by the first cognition. We cannot say that each member of the series refers to a new object. Hence persistent knowledge is, as the Bhātļas themselves admit, valid knowledge, although
1 NM, pp. 21-22

Page #88

VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD
69
it is not a knowledge of the new, but of the already known (adhigata).
Of course, the Bhāttas contend that the continuous cognition refers to new objects in all its parts The series of cognitions occurs at different instants of time. The thing as thus connected with different times, though apparently the same, becomes really different objects for our persistent knowledge of it. The successive cognitions are valid in so far as each apprehends the object as qualified by a different time and therefore as something new. The Advaita Vedānta suggests another way out of the difficulty According to it, persistent knowledge is valid either because its different parts perceive aifferent instants of time or because it is one single cognition as long as it persists and no new mental modification is produced. A continuous cognition is thus one present knowledge manifesting one thing which was previously unmanifested. So the question does not arise as to whether the series of cognitions apprehends new objects or not.
To this the Navyäyıkas object that the instants of time (ksana) cannot be perceived by us. The different instants, entering into the persistent cognition, being unperceived, cannot be said to constitute different objects for the series of cognitions 4 Were these temporal differences apprehended and wedged mto the body of the continuous cognition, its continuity would be broken up and our sense of continuity be lost. As that is not the case, we are to say that in persistent knowledge the series of cognitions refer to one and the same object. Nor can it be urged that persistent knowledge is a single state of cognition enduring for some time. Although from a subjective standpoint continuous cognition
1 NVT, p 21 2 SD., p 45 3 VP , Chap I. 4 NVT, ibid.

Page #89

70
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
may be considered to be one present state of conscious illumination, yet objectively it is a series of cognitions. The present is not a point or one instant of time, which is imperceptible, but a mass or block comprising several instants, while a cognition cannot endure for more than one moment or instant of time. Hence a present continuous cognition is really a series of cogations, of which those that succeed the first are admitted by all to be as valid as the first. It cannot be seriously maintained that they open up new aspects of the object. The palm of the hand seen a thousandth time adds no new content to our previous kpowledge of it.'? In fact the validity of knowledge does not lie in any character of novelty No kpowledge is made true or false by reason simply of its originality or unoriginality. The truth of knowledge does not depend on the newness of its object. The validity of any knowledge comprises three facts, namely, first a correct presentation of the object ; second, the practical activity of the knowing subject in response to the presentation, and finally, fulfilment of the activity in relation to the object. These three facts are inseparably bound up with one another, so that with the true presentation of the object, there follows the reaction of the subject and the fulfilment of the reaction by way of its producing the expected results. Now all the repeated experiences of a thing are equally connected with these three facts Hence there is no reason to think, as the Bhātta view will lead us to think, that the first cognition of a thing is valid knowledge, while all other subsequent cognitions of it are invalid.
1 TC , 1, pp 379 | Compare the Nyâya account of the present' with James's specious present' (Principles of Psychology) and Titebener's time-feld' (Text-Book of Psychology)
NM., pp. 21 f. 3 NYT.,, 21; NM., ubed.

Page #90

VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD 71 The Prābbākara Mimaṁsā defines pramā or valid knowledge as immediate experience (anubhūti). It is different from memory which is due solely to the impressions of past experiences. All immediate experiences have intrinsic validity. There cannot be any question as to the validity of immediate experience, because that is self-evident. Memory however is mediate knowledge, being conditioned by past experience. Hence the truth of knowledge (prämānya) is guaranteed by its having the character of immediacy.'
The Naiyāyıkas bring forward the charge of inconsistency against the Prābhākara definition of pramā. If all cognitions are valid hy themselves, there is no justification for treating memory-cognition as invalid on the ground that it is not immediate experience. It is also curious that the Prābhākaras take memory as valıd so far as the manifestation of knowledge and the knower is concerned, but invalid with regard to the manifestation of the object. According to them, every cognition is a triune manifestation (triputīsamvit). It manifests the subject, the object and itself at one and the same time. Memory as a cognition is valid so far as it manifests the knower and itseli (ūtmasvātma), but invalıd so far as it manifests the object (vedya). But there is no sense in this invidious distinction Either memory 18 wholly valid or it is not valid at all. Further, it is difficult to see what anubhūtı or immediate experience really means. It can not mean such knowledge as is not conditioned in its origin by some other knowledge. If it did, savikalpaka or determinate perception and inference would become invalid, since these depend on previous experience. Other possible meanings of anubhūti also do not stand scrutiny. So the
1 Pramanamaanbhūtih så smrteranya, etc , Prakaranapancakā, p. 42.

Page #91

72
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Prabhakara definition of prama and pramana is rejected as unsound by the Nyaya.'
In the Samkhya system, it is the function of the intellect (buddhiṛtli) that is regarded as pramāna or the specific cause of true knowledge. The self knows an object through a mental modification that corresponds to the impression produced in the sense organ by the object in question The object having impressed its form on the sense organ, the mind presents it to the self through a corresponding modification of itself Hence the mental function is pramāna or the source of our knowledge of the object.
The Naiyayika rejects this view also as untenable According to him, it is unintelligible how a material and unconscious principle like buddh can be the locus or the substratum of knowledge. It is the self that has the cognition of objects and not any blind modification of unconscious matter.2
The Nyaya criticism of the Bhatta view of pramā as knowledge of what was not previously known raises an important problem of knowledge The problem is this. Is knowledge a cognition of the known or of the unknown? If it be a cognition of the known, there is no need of it; if it be a cognition of the unknown, there is no possibility of attaining it. We do not want to know a thing which is already known, and cannot seek to know anything which is absolutely unknown. The Bhattas would say that since the known need not be known again, all knowledge must be a cognition of what was not known. On the other hand, the Naiyayikas point out that knowledge need not necessarily be a cognition of what was not previously known. If it were so, we could not speak of the development of knowledge or of a knowledge of the old and the familiar as we have it in recog
1 TR and SS.. pp. 19 f
2 NM, p. 26.

Page #92

VALID KNOWLEDGE AND ITS METHOD 73 nition. It seems to us that the Naiyāyikas are substantially right in their contention that the knowledge of what is alalready known is possible. All knowledge, except acquaintance, admits of degrees of determinateness.' Our knowledge of objects may pass from an indeterminate cognition of their bare existence to a definite recognition of their nature, character and past history. The more we know of the characteristics of an object, the more determinate is our knowledge of that object. What is known to have certain characteristics may be further known to have other important characteristics. It is in this way that our knowledge of an object develops and becomes more precise and comprehensive. It is true that the other characteristics were not previously know and so impart to the later knowledge a character of novelty. This however does not show that the object itself becomes new whenever we discern new characteristics in it. Rather we are to say that we know the same object which, in a way, we already know. In fact, our response to an absolutely new object is more like a shock of surprise than knowledge in the proper sense.
The Prābhākara view of pramā as immediate experience (anubhūti) is not really refuted by the Nyāya. Its criticism of this view generally sounds like the ignoratio elenchi. What it does is not to attack anubhūti as a character of true knowledge, but to show its inconsistency with the Prābhākara account of memory. In fact, the Präbhākara's anubhūti and the Naiyāyika's unubhava are cognate concepts. Their use of these concepts to exclude memory from pramā or valıd knowledge appears, as we shall see, to be equally unsound. Anubhūtı or anubhava, as a character of pramā does not necessarily imply that memory is not pramā or valid knowledge.
1 Cf L 8 Stebbing, Modern Introduction to Logic, p. 24.
10

Page #93

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The Nyāya should not have found fault with the Sāṁkhya views of the intellect or the mind as an organ of knowledge -(pramāna). On its own showing, pramāņa as the unique cause of pramā is a complex of physical and psychical conditions (bodhābodhasrabhāvā sāmagrī). Hence there seems to be nothing wrong merely in taking a material principle like buddhi as the means or organ of knowledge (pramāņa).

Page #94

CHAPTER IV
THE FACTORS OF VALID KNOWLEDGE (PRAMĀ)
1. The subject, object and method of valid knowledge
Pramā or valid knowledge has been defined by the Nyāya as true presentational cognition (yathārthānubhava). If we analyse this conception of pramā we shall get three essential factors involved in all valid kpowledge. Knowledge as such implies a subject-object relation. In all knowledge, be it true or false or neither, we see that a subject or knower stands related to an object, in so far as the former has a cognition of the latter. When however we have not any knowledge or cognition in view but only true or valid knowledge (pramā), there must be another factor, namely, a method of knowledge (pramāna). Of course, any knowledge, true or false, may be said to be produced by certain conditions or causes. But the cause or ground of wrong knowledge is not pramāna or a method of knowledge. The cause or the ground of non-valid knowledge (apramā) is not, therefore, a factor of valıd knowledge (pramā). Hence we see that the conception of pramā or valid knowledge implies three necessary factors, namely, the subject, the object and the method of knowledge (pramātā, prameya and pramāņa).
As to the first, namely, the pramātā, it has been said that every knowledge involves a subject or knower, in whiol knowledge inberes as an attribute. The subject is the substantive ground of all cognitions. It is that which likes
1 Sádbanāfrayāvyatırıktatve sati pramävyāptari pramānam, Sarvadarśanasangraha, Chapter on NyĀya philosophy

Page #95

76
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
and dislikes things and acts accordingly. IIence the pramātā is the self conceived as an intelligent agent. It is also independent in the sense that it exists for itself and is an end to itself. Its independence comes out in the facts that it enjoys and suffers, it is the centre of all activities, and that it directs the course of other things without being determined in its course by them, ie, it is self-determined. The pramātā thus described by the Nyāya resembles the self as that is conceived in modern self-psychology. Like it, the pramātā is that which knows and strives, enjoys and suffers, remembers and expects; it is an agent, a striver, a desirer, a refuser.
Secondly, pramā or valid knowledge implies some prameya or object, to which the process of knowledge refers or to which it is directed The object of knowledge may be either existent or non-existent. Both positive and negative facts may become the objects of true knowledge, but the knowledge takes different forms in the two cases. In the case of existent objects our knowledge is positive and does not depend on any objects other than its own The knowledge of non-existent objects is negative and conditional on the direct apprehension of similar existent objects. “The light of a lamp, which reveals the existence of certain perceived objects in a dark room, manifests also the non-existence of those that are not perceived, for if the latter had existed there, they would have been perceived like the similar perceived objects." 2 Hence just as there can be no knowledge without a conscious subject that knows, so there is no knowledge without an object-a thing or an attribute, a state or a process, a positive or a negative fact that is known. Subject and object (pramātā and prameya) are strictly correlative factors involved in all knowledge. They
1 Cf. McDougall, Outline of Psychology, pp. 21, 426. 1 NB., 1.1 1.

Page #96

FACTORS OF VALID KNOWLEDGE
77
are distinguishable no doubt as the knower and the known, but not separable in any act of knowledge.
Thirdly, all true knowledge must be connected with some method of knowledge. In Western philosophy it is customary to analyse the knowledge-relation into the three factors of subject, object and process of knowledge These correspond respectively to the pramātā, prameya and prama in Indian philosophy. In addition to these three, the Nyaya recognises the special cause of knowledge (pramāna) as an important factor. This is what in Western logic is usually called a method of knowledge and not a factor of it. While it does not overlook their distinction, the Nyaya rightly considers the subject, object, method and resulting state of knowledge (pramātā, prameya, pramāna and prama) as mutually unplicated aspects of the whole truth. Each of these is as essential to knowledge as the rest, and each of them involves the rest by way of logical implication (prasakti). So it has been said that in these four principles, when taken together in one whole, but never as disjoined, there is the realisation of truth (tattiaparisamāpti) Truth is realised when the subject having known the real by pramāņa, as good or bad or neutral, proceeds to obtain it or avoid it or remains indifferent to it, as the case may be, and ends in actual attainment or avoidance or mere apathy.
The real has thus a value for the knowing subject. Any account of reality as absolutely foreign to our subjective interests and personal values would be a fundamental misconception of it. The different systems of Indian philosophy agree in holding that the world of experience is a system of moral dispensation, in which man has to work out his destiny in obedience to the universal law of moral causation (karma). Right knowledge of reality is of supreme importance for man to reach the destination of life. True knowledge is not a passive and lifeless reflection of reality. On the other hand, it is that philosophic view of reality, which has its

Page #97

78
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
basis in the vital needs of our spiritual nature and is essentially conducive to the attainment of our supreme life-purpose (nihsreyasa). Herein lies one of the striking points of contrast between Eastern and Western philosophy. In the West, philosophy is mainly a matter of intellectual understanding. It is indeed a reflective knowledge of the nature and relations of things and beings. But such knowledge has not a direct bearing on life and conduct. It is seldom carried on with the express intention and determined will to solve the problems and work out the final good of life. To the ancient Indian thinkers, however, philosophy was not a mere rational knowledge of things and theories, but a means to the realisation of our life-end, the path to the final goal of life.
2. Distinction of the method from the subject and object of valid knowledge
It will appear from the preceding section that the subject (pramātā), the object (prameya) and the method (pramāna) are all necessary conditions of valid knowledge (pramā). No valid knowledge is possible without any one of them. For valid knowledge, the subject and object are as much necessary as the method of it. Hence the question naturally arises: How are we to distinguish the method from the subject and object and say that the first is the special cause (asādhārana kārana) of valid knowledge? Why is it that among the equally necessary factors of knowledge some one should be marked off from the rest and called the unique operative cause (karana) of it? How do we know that pramāna is the most efficient ground (sadhakatama) of knowledge, while the other factors are only the general conditions or the logical implications of knowledge ?
In the Nyaya system the answer to this question is to be found in two very important considerations. That pramāņa

Page #98

FACTORS OF VALID KNOWLEDGE
79
is the supreme cause and the most important ground of valid knowledge will, in the first place, appear from the following facts.
First of all we see that there is a uniform relation of agreement in presence and in absence between pramāna and pramā, as between cause and effect. A pramana is always accompanied by valid knowledge which, in its turn, can never arise without the former. Of course, there can be no valid knowledge without a subject and an object. But every case of the existence of subject and object is not necessarily a case of the appearance of pramā or valid knowledge. On the contrary, in every case in which a pramāna is operative, pramā or valid knowledge must appear as a natural sequence. Thus a man has no perception of objects in relation to which no sense organ is operative, although he, as subject, and those objects exist side by side If, however, the objects are in contact with his sense and his mind responds to the sense impressions, he cannot but have perception of those objects.
Secondly, we observe that the pramātā or subject arrives at a true knowledge of objects only when it is aided by a pramāņa or an operative cause of knowledge. Contrariwise, we find that the subject and object cannot produce any knowledge in the absense of the pramāņa or the source of knowledge. That is, the subject knows objects only when it makes use of a certain method, but not singly by itself.
Thirdly, we see that pramāna is the last link in the chain of antecedent conditions that lead to the knowledge of objects. It is the immediate antecedent to the origin of knowledge. The aggregate of psycho-physical conditions, on which knowledge depends, 18 completed by pramāna, and knowledge appears immediately as an effect. Pramāṇa is the cause of knowledge inasmuch as it is the immediate antecedent, on which knowledge follows first and immediate.
I NV., pp 5-7 ; NVT, pp. 22-25

Page #99

80
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Lastly, it has been pointed out by the Naiyāyikas that a distinction between the different kinds of knowledge is made by reference to the methods of acquiring knowledge. Perception, inserence, testimony, etc., are regarded as different kinds of knowledge because they are due to different pramāņas or methods of knowledge. This cannot be due to the subject or the object of knowledge, because these may be the same in what are generally admitted to be different kinds of knowledge. The same subject may know the same object first by inference and then by perception, as when a in in confirm the inference of fire in a distant place by approaching it. IIence the subject and object cannot explain why one kind of knowledge is called perception and another inference Similarly, we find that the mind's contact with the soul is the common mediate cause of all forms of knowledge. But the mode of this contact is different in different kinds of knowledge. We cannot account for such different modes by the subject and object of knowledge, for they may be the same in two kinds of knowledge. It is the pramina that determines the mind's contact with the soul in different ways in the different kinds of knowledge.
There are two ways of classifying knowledge, i.e. by reference to the nature of the objects known, and by reference to the grounds of knowledge. According to the first, we have as many kinds of knowledge as there are kinds of knowables or possible objects of knowledge. This way of distinguishing between the different kinds of knowledge has heen followed by the Jainas in their theory of knowledge which divides knowledge broadly into the two kinds of pratyakṣa or immediate and parokşa or mediate. Hobhouse als ) follows the saine principle in classifying the methods of knowledge in his Theory of Knowledge. The
1 Ibrd.

Page #100

FACTORS OF VALID KNOWLEDGE
81
second way, however, is generally accepted in Western philosophy. According to this, there are as many kinds of knowledge as there are ways of knowing or specific grounds of knowledge. The Nyāya follows this way along with the Vedānta and some other Indian systems. It shows also that a distinction of knowledge into different kinds cannot be based on the subject or the object of knowledge. The conclusion drawn from this and other facts is that pramāņa or the method is the operative cause of knowledge (pramā. karanai).
The second consideration, on wbich the superiority of pramāņa to the other factors of valıd knowledge is based, is this. The primary function of knowledge is to give us truth in the sense of real correspondence between idea and object (arthavattvam). Now for the fulfilment of this function knowledge is primarily and directly dependent on pramāņa or the operative cause of knowledge. The other factors of knowledge cannot lead to truth except through the aid of pramāna The objective validity of knowledge is directly dependent on the efficacy of the method or prumāna employed to acquire it. The subject or pramātā cannot directly produce the validity of knowledge, because as an agent it requires means to bring about a result and cannot itself directly produce the result. Nor can the object or prameya be said to produce the state of valid knowledge, for in inference the object is absent and cannot, therefore, be operative in producing a knowledge of itself in the knowing subject. It may, of course, be said that once we have the truth, we find it as belonging to the subject, the object and the knowledge-relation between the two. Still the subject, the object and the state of knowledge do not produce the truth, but owe it to the functioning of
pramıtırtyarthavanti bhavantı, NB.,
1 Arthavati ca pramane pramåtă prameya 1.1.1.
11

Page #101

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
pramāņa or the ground of knowledge. Hence pramāņa or the method of knowledge is the means or the operative cause (karaña) of knowledge, as distinguished from the pramātā or subject and prameya or object which are indeed logically implied in all knowledge but are not directly concerned in producing objectively valid knowledge (pramā)."
Thus according to the Naiyāyikas, the objective validity of knowledge is due to pramāna or the method on which it is based. The conscious subject and the cognised object cannot account for the correspondence of knowledge with real facts. The subject and the object participate in truth in so far as they are made to do so by some efficient organ of knowledge, the sense or the reason with wbich we are endowed. The universal condition of all knowledge is indeed consciousness. But from mere consciousness we cannot deduce the specific modes of knowledge, such as perception of the table, inference of coming rain, verbal cognitions and so forth. Hence while consciousness seems to be the first and the general cause of all knowledge, we require certain specific second causes to explain the particular modes of knowledge and their correspondence to particular objects or facts of the world. Such specific causes of knowledge are called pramānas in Indian philosophy.
1 NVT, pp. 22, 291,

Page #102

CHAPTER V
THE TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
1. The problems and alternative solutions
In the preceding chapters we have considered the different conceptions of bhrama or error and prainā or true knowledge. We have also seen that the specific modes of knuwledge arise from certain operative causes or specific conditions (jñānakaraṇa). These are called pramāna when the knowledge is true and apramāna when it is false. Here we have to consider the following problems as to the truth and falsity of knowledge. Admitting that knowledge depends on certain specific conditions for its origin, how are we to explain its truth or falsehood ? How again are we to know its truth or falsehood as the case may be ? In other words, the questions are : How is the validity or invalidity of knowledge constituted ? And, how is its validity or invalidity known by us? The first question refers to the conditions of origin (utpatlı), while the second, to the conditions of ascertainment (1ñapti) of truth and falsity.
Generally speaking, two possible answers may be given to the above two questions. First, it may be said that knowledge is both made and ascertained to be valid or invalid by the same conditions which bring about that knowledge (jñānasāmagrī). Secondly, it may be said that the truth or falsity of knowledge is both constituted and known by external conditions. On the first alternative, both truth and error would be self-evident (svatah). On the second alternative, neither truth nor false bood could be self-evident,

Page #103

84
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
but both must be evidenced by something else (paratah). Or, a distinction may be made between the two cases of truth and falsehood. It may thus be said that while the truth of knowledge is constituted and ascertained by intrinsic conditions (svatah), its falsity is made so by extrinsic conditions (parataḥ). Or, we may just reverse the order and say that while falsity is self-evident (svatah), truth requires evidence or proof by external conditions (paratah).
Thus we come upon four alternative solutions of the problems set forth above. Each of these has been adopted and supported by one or other of the systems of Indian philosophy. Samkhya accepts the first alternative, namely, that both the validity and invalidity of knowledge are selfevident. The Nyāya is generally in favour of the second, viz. that neither validity nor invalidity is self-evident, but that both are constituted and known by external conditions. The Bauddhas support the view that falsity is self-evident in knowledge and that external conditions are necessary for truth, if there be any. The Mimamsã and the Vedanta advocate the theory that all knowledge has self-evident validity, while falsehood is due to certain extrinsic conditions.1
2. The Nyāya theory of extrinsic validity and invalidity
According to the Nyaya, knowledge is just the manifestation (prakāśa) of objects. As such, it is neutral to truth and falsehood. No knowledge is true or false on its own account, i. e. simply because it is produced by certain specific causes (jñānasāmagri). The truth or falsity of knowledge depends respectively on its conformity or nonconformity to objects or facts. A knowledge is true when it corresponds to the real nature and relations of its object; if not, it becomes false, provided it claims to be true. Thus
1 Sarvadarsanasamgraha, Chapter on Jaimini system.

Page #104

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
truth and falsity are characters that appear to be added to knowledge which is indifferent to both, but may bave either, according to special circumstances. Hence the conditions of the valıdity or invalidity of knowledge must be different from and other than the conditions of the knowledge itself. If knowledge and its validity were conditioned by the same conditions, then error too would become valid knowledge. Even error is a form of knowledge and is conditioned by the conditions of the knowledge. Hence it should be as good as valıd knowledge. That is, the validity of knowledge being conditioned by the conditions of knowledge itself, there cannot be any false knowledge. On the other hand, if knowledge and its invalidity were due to the same conditions, there can be no valid knowledge. Hence we must admit that the truth and falsity of knowledge are due to different special conditions other than the conditions or specific causes of kuowledge itself.
What then are the special conditions of the validity and invalidity of knowledge ? According to the Nyāya, the validity of knowledge is due to the efficiency of the conditions of knowledge (kūranaguna), while its invalidity is due to some deficiency in those conditions (kāranadosa). The efficiency or deficiency of the conditions is constituted by certain positive factors. We cannot say that the efficiency of the conditions of knowledge is simply the absence of defects in them (dosābhāva), or that deficiency means only the absence of efficient conditions (gunābhāva). Both efficiency and deficiency stand for certain special positive conditions which modify the general conditions of knowledge and make it true and false respectively. In fact, the specific character of an effect (kāryaviścșa) is to be explained by some specific character of the cause (kāranaviseșa). Truth as a specific character of some knowledge and falsity as another speci
1 Yatbärthetarasă dbärano dbarmo bodbarūpatvarn, NM., p. 160.

Page #105

86
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
fic character of some other knowledge must therefore be due to different specific characters of the general conditions of knowledge.1 Thus the contact of an object with a sense organ is the general condition of perception. But its validity depends on such special conditions as the health of the sense organ, nearness of the object, sufficient light and sense-object contact On the contrary, perception is invalid when its general conditions are modified or vitiated by such other special conditions as disease, distance, darkness and slender sense-object contact Similar is the case with inference and other kinds of knowledge. Hence both the validity and invalidity of knowledge are conditioned by extrinsic conditions other than the conditions of knowledge itself (paratah utpattih).
Next we come to the question of the ascertainment of validity and invalidity (prāmāṇyā-prāmānyanıṣcaya). How is the validity or invalidity of knowledge known? Are they known by the same conditions that constitute knowledge or by any other external conditions? Generally speaking, the Naiyayikas maintain that the truth and falsity of knowledge are known by certain external conditions other than the conditions of knowledge itself (parataḥ prāmānyāprāmānyajñaptı). If the validity of knowledge be known intrinsically by the conditions of knowledge itself, there can be no doubt with regard to the validity of any knowledge. On the other hand, if the knowledge of invalidity be due to the conditions of knowledge itself, there can be no wrong action. That is, if truth be self-evident, there need be no doubt and dispute about knowledge, and if falsehood be self-evident, there should be no illusion and disappointment. In fact, neither truth nor falsehood is known to belong to knowledge just at the time
1 Doso 'pra'nāyā janakaḥ pramāyāstu gupo bhavet, etc, Siddhantakmutāvalī, 131, prama jñānahctvatiriktahetvadhin karyyatve atı tadviseṣatvāt apramavat, Kusumanjali, pp. 27-09.

Page #106

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
87
we have that knowledge. As a general rule, the validity or invalidity of knowledge is known some time after the knowledge itself has appeared.'
What then are the external conditions of the knowledge of valıdıty or invalidity of knowledge ? The Naiyāyikas answer that both are known by inference. While knouledge may be internally perceived, its validity or invalidity 18 to be inferred from such extřinşic conditions as its capacity or incapacity to produce successful activity (pravsttısāmarthya). Knowledge is known to be valid when it leads to successful activity in relation to its object. We know objects by means of perception, inference, etc. This knowledge sets up certain psycho-physical reactions (pravșttı) in the knowing subject. The success of these reactions, 1.c. their being duly connected with the expected object, is the evidence for the truth of the knowledge. Men sometimes act on wrong knowledge under the belief that it is true and arises out of valid conditions. The reason for this confusion between true and false knowledge is some point of similarity between the two Even wrong knowledge is as good a cognition of objects with their general characters (sāmānyaparıcchedaka) as right knowledge is such. So one is apt to be mistaken for the other. But in such cases what distinguishes valıd knowledge from the invalıd is the test of successful activity A valıd knowledge not only gives us a cognition of some object, but also leads to successful actions on the part of the knowing subject. An invalid knowledge, on the other hand, gives us a cognition of objects indeed, but it fails to lead to successful activity. If ouc knowledge does not correspond to its object, it can not be practically efficient in relation to it. In the cases of illusion, hallucination, dream, etc., our knowledge can
1 TC , I, pp 184, 233 , NM., pp 160, 169 f ; Pråmāṇyam hi samarthapra vșttijanakattvådanumeyam, NVTP, 1.1.1

Page #107

80
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
not be the basis of effective actions. The Naiyāyikas, therefore, conclude that the truth of knowledge is not selfevident in it, but is evidenced or known by inference from successful activity. By successful activity, they mean the volitional experiences (arthakriyājñāna) of the expected object (phalajñāna). The perception of water in a certain place is known to be true when by acting on that perception we meet with the expected water. Contrariwise, a knowledge is known to be invalıd, when it is contradicted by subsequent volitional experiences (pravrttuisamvāda). That is, the invalidity of knowledge is mferred from the failure of the practical activities based on it The perception of silver in a shell is known to be illusory because the act of picking up does not give the expected silver. Hence pravșttisāmarthya means that the object as cognised is found present when acted upon by us, 2.e. it is given to volitional experience just as it was given to the corresponding cognitive experience.'
In the case of the knowledge of familiar objects (abhyāsadaśājñāna), we do rot require the test of successful activity or conative satisfaction (pravrttisamarthya). In this case it may seem at first sight that the validity or invalidity of knowledge is self-evident (svatah). A habitual experience is known to be valid or invalid even before we proceed to act upon it and see if it leads to the expected object or not. It would therefore seem that the validity or invalidity of habitual experience need not be known by any inference and, as such, is self-evident. But here the Naiyāyikas point out that it is a contradiction to say that the truth of the familiar is self-evident. The knowledge of the valıdıty of familiar knowledge is conditioned by the conditions of its familiarity. The familiarity of knowledge means its similarity to previous
| NM, pp 171-72.

Page #108

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
knowledge. Hence if we have ascertained the validity of the previous knowledge, we may very well know the validity of the present familiar knowledge by an inference based on its similarity to the former (lajjātīyatva). What happens here is that the previous verification of knowledge by conative satisfaction becomes a determinant of similar subsequent knowledge. This shows that the validity or invalidity of such knowledge as is not new is known by inference based on essential similarity or generic identity This inference is, in most cases, implicit and unconscious. But it is never absent. We may put it explicitly in the form of a syllogism like this ‘All knowledge of a known character is valıd; this knowledge is of that character; therefore this is valid.' So too, mutatis mutandis, for the inference by which we know the invalidity of the knowledge of familiar objects. Hence the Naiyāyikas conclude that knowledge is both made true or false, and known to be true or false by certain external conditions other than those conditioning the knowledge itself.
3. Objections to the theory answered by the Nyāya
According to the Nyāya, knowledge is not ascertained as true or false at its very inception. To have knowledge is not, at the same time, to know it as true or false. The validity or invalidity of knowledge is first known by us when we act upon that knowledge and see if the action is successful or not. But with regard to the test of conative satisfaction (pravșttisāmarthya) as a condition of the knowledge of the validity of knowledge, it may be asked : how do we know that the feeling of satisfaction is true and not false? The perception of water, for example, is to be known as valid when it leads to the volitional experience of the
INM, p. 174.
12

Page #109

90
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
expected results (arthakriyākhyaphalajñāna). But how do we know that the volitional experience is valid ? Does it not require to be validated by other conditions? If it does, there will be no end of the process of validation and the first perception of water cannot be completely verified 1
To this question the Naiyāyikas give two answers. First, it has been said that the experience of expected objects (phala iñāna) does not ordinarily require any test of its validity, because there is no doubt about it or because there is the fulfilment of our purpose in it. As for instance, the first perception of water in a mirage requires to be tested because we have doubts about its validity, but that of a man going into water need not be further tested, since it is not infected by any doubt and it fulfils the man's expectations
Secondly, the volitional experience of expected objects may, if necessary, be verified by certain special characteristics of it. Thus the visual perception of water may be validated by the expected tactual sensations of it, and the latter may be further confirmed by the experiences of batbing, washing, drinking, etc., which are usually associated with water. It may be urged here that a man has the whole series of experiences even in a dream. Hence it is at least theoretically possible that the first volitional experiences of water as well as those of its usual associates are as invalid as dream experiences According to the Naiyāyıkas, this hypothesis is untenable There is an obvious distinction between dream consciousness and waking experience. While the latter is clear and distinct, the former is confused and indistinct. Dreams have not the order and uniformity of our waking experiences. Dream experience is contradicted by waking perceptions. There cannot be any retrospection of dream cognitions (anuvyavasāya). What is cognised in
I NM., p 172.

Page #110

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
97
dream cannot be the object of a later dream cognition as something that was cognised. In dream all things may be seen but none remembered as what has been previously seen. Hence the waking volitional experiences cannot be reduced to dream.'
The second objection against the Nyāya theory of extrinsic validity is that it involves the fallacy of reasoning in a circle (parasparāśraya) The knowledge of the validity of knowledge is said to be conditioned by successful activity, which, in its turn, depends on the knowledge of valıdıty. Successful activity depends on two conditions. First, it depends on a true knowledge of objects. Any knowledge of objects cannot make our actions successful. If it were so, even a wrong cognition of silver should lead to the actual attainment of it. Hence successful activity must always be due to a true knowledge of objects. Secondly, successful activity requires a right understanding of those objects as means to some end or good. We strive for certain objects only when we know them as the necessary conditions of realising some good Such knowledge may, of course, be derived from inference If the present objects are similar to other things which proved to be effective means in the past, we infer that these too will serve as means to the present end. This then implies that successful activity requires a valid knowledge of objects as means to some good. But we cannot know that we have a valid knowledge of objects unless we already know what the validity of knowledge means Hence it seems that successful activity depends on the knowledge of validity, while the knowledge of validity depends on successful activity. The two being thus necessarily interdependent, neither can be made the ground of the other, and so the validity of knowledge can never be known.?
1 NM , Ibid
NM, pp 163 f.

Page #111

92
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The Naiyāyikas meet the above objection with a just recognition of the difficulties raised in it. According to them, the validity of knowledge is not self-evident, but must be ascertained from certain external conditions. In the case of new objects of experience, such conditions are to be found in the success of the practical activities based on any knowledge. The validity of knowledge is to be known from its capacity to produce successful activity. Hence prior to any conative verification, the validity of knowledge remains doubtful. It is also true that a valid knowledge of objects is the basis of our successful actions in relation to them. An action cannot lead to the expected results unless it is grounded on a true knowledge of some objects as means to some end.
So far the Naiyāyikas admit the contention of the critics. But they point out that this does not lead to the conclusion drawn by them. It does not follow that there can be no successful activity without prior knowledge of the validity of knowledge. A true knowledge of objects is by no means the necessary condition of our action (pravștti) in relation to them. Any knowledge of objects, right or wrong, is the sufficient ground for producing certain modes of action on the part of the knowing subject What happens generally is that we act even in the midst of uncertainty and that while acting we may have doubts as to the success of our actions. Even if it be true that to act for ends we must adopt means, it is not always necessary that we must have a true knowledge of the means of actions. A mere belief in the means as means will suffice for many voluntary actions. Again, successful activity may be dependent on a valid knowledge of objects. But this does not mean that we must bave a knowledge of the validity
1 Cf Stebbing, Logic in Practice, p 99.“ Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with heliefs of such a kind (. e beliefs more likely to be true)."

Page #112

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
93 of the knowledge, by which it is conditioned. To act successfully we must have true knowledge as the basis of our activity. But we may have true knowledge even when we do not know that it is true. To have true knowledge is not necessarily to know the truth of that knowledge.'
Hence it follows that we can act when we have some knowledge of an object. The knowledge, by which our action is conditioned, may be true or false without our knowing it as true or false. If then we find that the action is successful, we come to know that the knowledge, on which it was based, is true. If, however, the action becomes unsuccessful, we are convinced that the knowledge, on which it was grounded, must have been false. All that is necessary for our actions is that we must believe in what we know, and not that we must verify it as true before we proceed to act.
When we have ascertained the validity of knowledge in some cases, some perceptions and inferences, we may in other similar cases act with an assurance that we have a true knowledge of some objects and that the means of our actions are efficient. Here a present knowledge, a new perception or inference, is known to be valid by reason of its essential similarity with some past valid knowledge. So it may be said that prior to successful activity we know the valıdıty of our knowledge. But even here it should be noted that the knowledge of validity is not the determinant or the cause (prayojaka) of practical activity. Such knowledge may precede activity but it is not a necessary condition of practical activity. If in the face of this, the critic insists that no successful activity is possible without previous knowledge of validity, the reply is that the critical activity itself must siop. The critic cannot be sure of the validity of his contention
1 NM., p. 178

Page #113

94
NYAYA TA EO, Y OF KNOWLEDGE
without the attainment of success. Hence of the attainment of success presiipposes kuowledge of validity, there cannot be any contention at all The contending will can have no logical justification There is, therefore, no necessity of the knowledge of valıdıty either for activity as such or for successful activity. The latter does not presuppose the former Hence there is no fallacy of circular reasoning involved in the view that successful activity is the test of the truth of knowledge
The third objection against the Nyāja view of extrinsic validity is that it ivolves the fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum (anarasthā). If the valıdıty of a knowledge is to be known from an external source, ie by means of some other knowledge, then we shall have to prove the validating knowledge on other external grounds, and so on ad infinitum. Thus we are to say that the validity of perception is known by inference, that of inference by comparison (upamāna), that of the last by testimony, and that of testimony by still other nethods of knowledge. Hence the methods of knowledge must be innumerable. It may be said that to prove the validity of knowledge we need not go beyond the four methods, but prove one ndividual perception or inference by another perception or inference. Even then we cannot avoid the difficulty of infinite regress What will happen is that within the circle of the four metl ods of the Nyāya, the process of validation of one knowledge by another will go on for ever. Thus the perception of water may be known to be valid by inference from successful activity or essential similiarity. But how are we to know the validity of the validating inference? It must be by some other perception or inference, and so on ad infinitum. To avoid this difficulty the Naiyāyikas cannot say that while the validity of the primary knowledge is established by the secondary, that of the latter is self-evident, and so requires no verification. If the truth of the secondary

Page #114

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
95 knowledge be self-evident, there is nothing to prevent the prinary knowledge from having self-evident validity. Further, it will involve a surrender of the Naiyāyıka posltion that the validity of all knowledge is constituted and ascertained by external conditions. Hence it seems that on the Nyāya theory of validity, the process of the verification of knowledge will go on as an infinite chain of arguments, in which every link will hang on the next, but the last link is never to be found (anūdiparamparā).'
To this the Naiyāyıkas reply that the validit of a knowledge must be known hy extrinsic conditions wherever it is necessary to know it at all But it is not always necessary to ascertain the validity of a knowledge. It becomes necessary wben any doubt as to its validity actually arises. Thus when we have the visual perception of water and have any doubt about its validity, we do of course ascertain it by inference from some successful activity, 1. e. by touching or drinking the water. But the validity of the verilying experience requires no further examination or proof. There being no doubt about its validity we do not feel any necessity to prove or ascertain it. Hence the tactual perception of water validates the visual perception of it even when there is no ascertainment of its own validity. When however we have any doubt about the validity of the tactual perception, we must establish it by other external conditions, such as the corroborating testimony of different persons. Thus it follows that to know the validity of a knowledge by external grounds, it is not necessary to know the validity of those grounds so long as they stand undoubted and uncontradicted (samśayābhāva) If any one still doubts that the validating ground may itself be valid or not, then we have an unmeaning motiveless doubt which has no place in logic.?
1 TC, I, pp 276-77, NM, pp. 162 f. 2 NM, p 173, TC, 1, pp 277-79, 282f

Page #115

96
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Lastly, the Nyāya discusses the sceptical contention that there cannot be any valid knowledge. By valid knowledge 18 meant such knowledge of objects as is due to some method of knowledge (pramāņa). But how is knowledge related to its object in the order of time? Does it precede or succeed or synchronize with the existence of its object (prameya) ? Knowledge cannot be said to precede its object, since no knowledge appears except as the knowledge of some object. Nor can we say that knowledge succeeds or follows its object. A thing becomes an object to us in so far as it is known. There can be no object which is not the object of some knowledge. Without knowledge there is no object. If a thing can be an object independently of knowledge, there is no need of a method of knowledge for it. Nor again can we say that knowledge and the objects of knowledge co-exist in time. If that were so, all objects of the world will be known at the same time, and there can be no desire to increase our knowledge of things. Further, this will contradict the Nyāya view of tbe serial order of cognitions, from which the existence of manas or the internal sense is inferred. Hence it follows that there can be neither knowledge nor a method of knowledge (pramāna). 1
This is the sceptical objection against the possibility of knowledge as such. It denies the possibility of knowledge on the ground that the reference of knowledge to its object is inexplicable in the order of time. To this we may of course say with Green that, even if knowledge be taken as an event in time, its reference to the object is timeless, 80 that the question of the temporal relation between knowledge and its object does not arise. The Naiyāyikas, however, admit that knowledge refers to its object in the order of time. But they point out that the temporal order
1 NB., 2. 1. 8-11.

Page #116

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
997
between knowledge and its object is indeterminate. It is not the case that knowledge must have a fixed temporal order of priority or posteriority or simultaneity with its object Knowledge arises out of certain causes and refers to some objects. In some cases knowledge precedes the existence of its object, as when we know something that is to happen in the future. In other cases the object as a physical thing or event may be said to precede our knowledge of it, as when we know that something was or had happened in the past. In still other cases knowledge and its object may be said to co-exist or to appear simultaneously in time. This is illustrated by the perception of present facts and, still better, by introspective knowledge of mental contents. Hence the Naiyāyikas maintain that tle time-relation between knowledge and its object cannot be objectively determined as something unalterably fived like that between cause and effect. It is a variable relation which is to be determined as of this or that kind by actual observation of the instance of knowledge in question. In fact, the same thing can, in different cases, be called the knowledge of object (pramā), the object of knowledge (prameya) and the operative cause of knowledge (pramāņa), just as the same word may be subject and predicate in different relations and positions. Hence the question of the time-relation between knowledge and the object of knowledge does not necessarıly lead to the denial of all knowledge. Further, scepticism, if it is to be consistent, cannot really deny the possibility of knowledge. To deny knowledge is to disbelieve it. But to disbelieve is to know that something is not true. Hence the demal of knowledge must have a positive basis in some kind of knowledge. But it is a contradiction to deny knowledge by means of knowledge. This is the Naiyāyika's reductio ad absurdum of scepticism.
1 NB, 2 1 12-16
13—(1117B)

Page #117

98
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
4.
Criticism of the Sāṁkhya view of intrinsic validity
and invalidity
According to the Sāmkhya, truth and falsity are inherent in knowledge. A knowledge is both made true or false and known to be true or false by the conditions of the knowledge itself. Validity and invalidity cannot be produced in any knowledge ab extra, but must belong to it ab initio. The one is as much intrinsic or internally conditioned as the other. Hence knowledge must have validity or invalidity on its own account and, as such, these must be self-evident. This view follows from the Sāṁkhya theory of immanent causality (satkāryavāda). According to this, causation is only manifestation of the effect that potentially pre-exists in the cause. A cause can produce only that effect which is inherent in the causal complex. Otherwise, any cause will produce any effect, even the unreal and the fictitious. Hence the validity or invalıdıty of cognitions as causally determined effects must be regarded as somebow inherent in the cognitions. This means that valıdıty and invalidity are inherent in knowledge. Thus the validity and invalidity of knowledge are self-evident.'
The Samkhya view has been criticised by the Nyāya and the Mimāṁsā. The latter points out that the theory of causality, on which the Sāmkbya view of the validity and invalidity of knowledge rests, is itself untenable. Causation or effectuation has no meaning if wbat is caused 18 pre-existent and so need not really be caused or produced. Causation must be a process of real effectuation, i.e. it must be the production of the new or the previously non-existent effect. Further, it 18 a contradiction to say that both validity and invalidity belong to the same thing, namely, knowledge. How can such contradictory characters belong to the same
1 BD. & 8C., p. 20, NM., p. 160.

Page #118

TEST OF TRUTĖ AND ERROR
99
thing? It cannot be said that while validity is intrinsic to valid knowledge, invalidity is intrinsic to invalid knowledge. Apart from any external conditions, a knowledge cannot determine itself either as valid or invalid. If validity and invalidity are equally intriosic to knowledge, it must have both at the same time. The Naiyāyikas reject the Samkhya view on the ground that it fails to account for the failure of practical activities (pravșttivisamvāda). If the validity of knowledge be self-evident, there cannot be unsuccessful activity. If its invalidity be self-evident, there cannot be any activity at all. The cognition of silver in a shell must be either valid or invalid. If it is valid and known to be valid by itself, then the act of picking it up should not lead to disappointment. On the other hand, if it is invalid and known to be invalid by itself, no one should strive to pick it up. But illusions and disappointments are ordinary and frequent experiences of life. Hence neither the validity nor the invalidity of knowledge is intrinsic and self-evident.
5. Criticism of the Bauddha theory of intrinsic invalidity
and extrinsic validity
According to the Buddhists, all knowledge is invalid by its very nature The validity of knowledge consists in its capacity to produce successful action. Hence prior to any successful activity every knowledge is to be treated as invalid. We cannot say that validity belongs to knowledge simply because it has come to be, or has appeared. In that case, error will have to be regarded as valid knowledge, because error too appears as a form of knowledge. That knowledge has been produced does not necessarily mean that there is in it a true cognition of the object, since the
1 SD. & 8C, pp 20-21; Mānameyodaya, p. 75. 'NM., p. 160; TC., I, p 184.

Page #119

100
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
knowledge is liable to contradiction. Hence we are to say that invalidity belongs to knowledge at its inception and its validity is due to the negation of invalidity by external conditions. In fact, the question of truth and falsity does not arise so long as we are concerned with mere belief. We may know things and believe in them without knowing whether the belief is true or false. The question of the validity of knowledge arises first when a certain belief is contradicted and we apprehend its invalidity. Hence in logic we must start with the invalidity of knowledge.
From a sceptical or rather critical standpoint, the Buddhists take all knowledge as intrinsically invalid and treat validity as an extrinsic character which knowledge comes to have by way of conative verification (pravrttisämarthya) According to them, the truth of knowledge is constituted by successful activity. Hence it follows that prior to successful activity, knowledge is not-true. When any knowledge leads to successful activity we know that it is not not-true, 1.e. it is true. So the Buddhists give a negative definition of truth as what is not false (avisamvādakam) and conclude that falsity is intrinsic and truth extrinsic to knowledge.
1
The Naiyayikas reject the Bauddha view of intrinsic invalidity on the ground that it cannot account for unsuccessful practical activity (pravrttivisamvāda). If the invalidity of knowledge be self-evident, why should a man run after the false, knowing that it is false. Hence there cannot be any practical reaction in connection with illusion. Again, if the invalidity of knowledge be due to defects in the conditions of knowledge and be known through contradiction, it cannot be held that it is intrinsically conditioned and self-evident That invalidity is due to certain extra conditions (kāranadosa) must needs be admitted. Invalidity is not merely the absence of validity, but a positive character 1 NBT, pp 3 f

Page #120

101
of such forms of knowledge as doubt and error. Hence it must be due to some positive conditions other than the causes of knowledge. As such invalidity is not intrinsic to knowledge.1
TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
6. Criticism of the Mimamsa theory of intrinsic validity and extrinsic invalidity
According to the Mīmāmsã and the Vedanta, the validity of knowledge is due to conditions that are intrinsic to knowledge, and the knowledge of validity is due to the condition of knowledge itself. This means that knowledge is both made valid and known to be valid by its own intrinsic conditions.
It is the very nature of knowledge to reveal its object. There is no knowledge which does not manifest the nature of some object Hence it follows that knowledge requires no other conditions than itself in order to reveal its object. It cannot fail to give us truth if it is to be knowledge at all. For how can it reveal its object without being true? So wi see that knowledge must be valid by its very nature, 1.e. the very conditions which condition knowledge must als condition its validity. It cannot be said that knowledge is a neutral cognition and that validity and invalidity are its adventitious characters. There is no such thing as a neutral or characterless cognition. Every cognition must be either valid or invalid. There is no third alternative here. A cognition which is neither valid nor invalid is not a fact but a fiction. As for doubt (samsaya), we are to say that it is not a neutral cognition, but a form of invalid knowledge. Further, if knowledge is not valid on its own account, it can be made valid on account of any external condition. For the validating condition must itself be valid,
never
1 NM, pp 160, 169, SD., p 21

Page #121

102
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
ated by other conditions, and these again by still other conditions and so on ad infinitum. This means that the validity of knowledge cannot be finally established. Hence we must either say that knowledge is valid by its very nature or deny that there is any valid knowledge at all. The validity of knowledge must thus be conditioned by the conditions of knowledge itself, i.e. it must be intrinsic to knowledge. The only external condition for validity is the negative one of the absence of vitiating factors (dosābhāva). But this does not mean that validity is externally conditioned, since the absence of a thing is not a positive factor that contributes anything towards the validity of knowledge. The absence of vitiating conditions accounts for the absence of invalidity and not for the positive fact of validity. There is no evidence for any positive external condition like special efficacy of the conditions of knowledge (kārakātiriktatadgataguna) So we are to say that the validity of knowledge is due to the conditions of knowledge itself (svarūpasthitahetuja), i.e. it is intrinsic to knowledge
Similarly, the validity of knowledge must be known from the conditions of knowledge itself. A true knowledge is by itself known to be true. It does not require anything else to show its truth. In fact, the truth of knowledge cannot be known from any external condition. We cannot know it from any special efficacy in the conditions of knowledge (kāraṇaguņa) There is no such thing as a special potency of the causes of knowledge Even if there were such a thing, it cannot be known, since it must pertain to the sense-organs and, as such, must be supersensible. Nor can we know validity from the experience of non-contradiction (badhakābhāvajñāna). Non-contradiction cannot be a test of the truth of knowledge. When we speak of non-contradiction we must mean either of two things, namely, that
1 VP., Ch VI ; SD., pp. 20, 21, 48.

Page #122

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
103
there is no contradiction for the present or that there cannot be a contradiction at any time. But to know that there is non-contradiction for the present is not to know that the knowledge must be valid. For what is not now contradicted may be and often is contradicted in the future. That there cannot be a contradiction at any time is what we can never know unless we become omniscient Absolute noncontradiction is therefore an impracticable test of truth. Nor? again can the validity of knowledge be known from its/ coherence with some other knowledge (samvāda). For this will lead to infinite regress. How can we know tbat there is real coberence between two cases of knowledge? How again do we know that the second knowledge, with which the first coberes and by which it is tested, is itself valid ? To prove the validity of the second we must show its coherence with a third and so on ad infinitum Or, if we stop anywhere and say that the last knowledge or the system of knowledge as a whole has self-evident validity, there is no reason why the first knowledge cannot be said to bave the same selfevident truth It cannot also be said that the coherence of knowledge consists in the volitional experience of expected results. The mere experience of desired objects is no evidence of the validity of knowledge. In dream we have vivid experiences of many desired things. This however does not make dream a valid knowledge at all. Thus we see that there cannot be any extraneous test of the validity of knowledge, like correspondence, coherence, non-contradiction or pragmatic utility. Hence knowledge_must_testor certify its own truth, i.e. the validity of knowledge is self-evident.
As to invalidity or falsity, the Mimāmsakas and the Vedāntists hold that it is extrinsic to knowledge. Wbile truth is organic to knowledge, falsity is accidental
I VP. & 8D., sbad , NM , pp. 162-65.

Page #123

104
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
and externally conditioned. Thus the invalıdity of knowledge is due to some defects in the conditions of knowledge (kāraṇadoșa). It is only when certain defects vitiate its natural conditions that knowledge fails in its purpose, namely, the attainment of truth. So invalidity is conditioned by conditions other than those of the knowledge itself. Similarly, the knowledge of invalidity depends on such external conditions as the experience of contradiction and the knowledge of vitiating conditions. This means that knowledge per se is valid. If in any case it is rejected as false, that is only because it fails to lead up to certain expected results (viparītavyar ahāraja), and not because it fails to reveal its object. Every knowledge is intrinsically valid. When any knowledge is, as a matter of practical usage (vyavahāra), called false, that is either because it is contradicted by some other knowledge or because it is perceived to arise from certain defects in its natural conditions. The invalidity of knowledge is thus both constituted and known by external conditions other than the conditions of knowledge itself
In some cases it may so happen that when one knowledge is contradicted by another, we may have some doubt with regard to the second invalıdating knowledge and require a third knowledge to resolve the doubt. But even here we are not involved in an infinite regress and bound to give up the idea of the intrinsic valıdıty of knowledge. If the third knowledge is consistent with the first, then the intrinsic valıdıty of the latter remains established as before. What the third knowledge does is not to validate the first by reason of its coherence with it, but to dispel the false doubt raised by the second contradicting knowledge. It, on the other hand, the third is consistent with the second, it confirms the sense of contradiction and the first is known
1
Ibid.

Page #124

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
105 to be invalid. Here the invalidity of the first is known through something other than itself. That the third is consistent with the second does not mean that it validates the second. It means only that the doubt attaching to the second is dispelled by its coherence with the third. Hence it follows that every knowledge validates itself through itself and is invalidated by some other knowledge. That is, validity is intrinsic to all knowledge, while invalidity is extrinsic and accidental.'
The Naiyāyıkas reject the first part of the Mīmāmgā theory, namely, that knowledge is both made valid and known to be valid by its own intrinsic conditions. The validity of knowledge cannot be due to the conditions of knowledge as such. If that were so, there could not be any invalid knowledge, since even invalid knowledge arises from the conditions of knowledge. In fact a valid cognition is more than a cognition as such. Hence it must be due to some special character of the general conditions of knowledge just as an invalid cognition is due to some positive factors that vitiate the general conditions of knowledge. The mere absence of vitiating factors cannot account for the positive character of validity. Thus the validity of perception is due not merely to the absence of vitiating factors like the diseased condition of the sense-organ, but to such positive factors as the healthy condition of the sense-organ, etc. Similarly, in all other cases the validity of knowledge is due to some special auxiliary conditions in the specific causes of knowledge (kāranaguna). Such special conditions may not be always perceived, but they may be known from other sources, like inference and testimony. The special efficacy of the sense-organs may be known from the medical sciences. Further, if the validity of knowledge be due simply to the absence of vitiating conditions, its invalidity
1 NM., pp. 166-67.
14—(1117 B)

Page #125

106
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
may also be said to be due to the absence of efficacious conditions. As such, we need not say that invalidity is due to external conditions. Again, on the Mīmāmsā view, all knowledge being intrinsically valid, the distinction between truth and falsehood becomes insignificant. We should not speak of any knowledge as invalid. It cannot be said that when any knowledge turns out to be false, it altogether ceases to be knowledge or cognition A wrong knowledge is as good a cognition as a true one So, if cognition per se be true, there cannot be any wrong cognition. But that there are wrong cognitions, illusions, and hallucinations is an undeniable fact. So it must be admitted that both validity and invalidity are externally conditioned.'
Similary, no knowledge is by itself known to be valid, i.e. the validity of knowledge is not self-evident Thus the cognition of blue does not cognise its truth or valıdıty at the same time that it cognises the blue colour. It does not eren cognise itself immediately as a cognition of blue, far less as a valid cognition of blue. On the Bhātta view, a cognition is not immediately cognised, but is known mediately by inference If so, the validity of knowledge can not be immediately known by itself. Nor can we say that with every cognition there follows immediately another cognition wbich cognises the validity of the first. With the perception of blue, for example, we do not find another cognition immediately following it and cognising its validity or invalıdıty. There is no introspective evidence for a secondary cognition of validity appearing immediate!y after the primary cognition of an object. Even if there were such, the valıdıty of knowledge will not be self-evident but evidenced by another knowledge. Further, if the invalidity of knowledge be known from its contradiction, we are to say that its validity is known from the absence of contradiction.
1 NM, pp 170-71; BM., 181-86,

Page #126

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
107
On the other hand, if we accept the Prābhākara view that knowledge is self-manifest and guarantees its own truth without reference to anything else, we do not see how there can be doubt and suspicion, or how there can be any failure of practical activity. Since valıdıty is inherent and self-evident in knowledge, every knowledge must carry in it an assurance of its truth and we should have no doubt. Similarly, every knowledge being true and known to be true by itself, there cannot be any disappointment in practical life. But doubts and disappointments are very common experiences of life. If it be said that doubt arises out of contradiction between two cognitions and is resolved by a third cognition, we are forced to give up the idea of self-evident validity. The third cognition may not constitute the validity of the first by reason of its coberence with it, but it at least conditions our knowledge of its validity So the validity of one knowledge is known by another knowledge. In fact knowledge only reveals its object. To know that it is valıd, 1.c. it truly reveals the object, we must have some extraneous test like coherence with volitional experience or some accredited past knowledge. Hence the validity of knowledge must be known from external conditions.
It will appear from the above discussion that the Naiyāyikas are not prepared to accept the theory of intrinsic validity. That truth is intrinsic to and self-evident in all knowledge is not admitted by them. But that the truth of some cases of knowledge is self-evident is admitted by some Naiyāyikas. There is on this point a difference of opinion between the ancient and the modern exponents of the Nyāya. The older Naiyāyikas insist that a proof of the validity of any knowledge requires the exclusion of other suggested possibilities contrary to it. Hence we find that
1 Ibid.

Page #127

108
NYAYA TAEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
they try to establish the validity of every knowledge by external grounds, even at the risk of an infinite regress. To prove the validity of knowledge we need not go beyond perception, inference, comparison and testimony. But one perception or inference must be proved by another individual perception or inference. Hence the same knowledge may sometimes be proved by another and some. times taken to prove another (pradīpaprakāśavat). This seems to be a more empirical and common-sense view of the validity of human knowledge.
Later Naiyāyikas however do not insist that every knowledge must be tested and proved before we can accept its validity. According to them, the validity of knowledge need not be proved if there is not the slightest doubt about it (samśayābhāva). Its validity is practically self-evident so long as it is not contradicted. A motiveless doubt of a possible contradiction is of no account. To say that a knowledge is evidently valid it is not necessary to prove its infallibility or to exclude all other possibilities contrary to it. So if there be such knowledge as cannot reasonably be doubted we are to say that it has self-evident truth. Of course, when any doubt or dispute arises as to its truth, we must prove it by some extraneous test. Among such cases of knowledge the Naiyāyikas include logical inference and comparison, and cognition of the resemblance between two cognitions (jñānagatasādrśyajñāna), cognition of cognition or self-consciousness (anuvyavasāya), and cognition of anything as something or as a mere subject (dharmijñāna). Inference and comparison (upamāna) as logical methods are based on some necessary relation between two terms, namely, a mark and the marked (hetu and sūdhya), a name and its denotation (samjña and samiñī) respectively. Hence knowledge by inference and comparison is known as
INB, 2. 1. 17-19.

Page #128

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
109
necessary knowledge. These become the content of selfconscious knowledge and, as such, their validity is selfevident. Similarly, the cognition of a cognition or awareness of awareness, the cognition of the similarity between cognitions and the cognition of anything as a mere subject are all cases of self conscious knowledge. In these we not only know something but also know that we know it. That is, we know that something is known. Hence these cases of knowledge also are necessary knowledge having self-evident valıdıty.
In the case of sense-perception and testimony, bowever, there cannot be any self-evident validity. These are not based on any necessary relation between two terms. There is no necessary relation between sense-perception and its object or between words and their meanings. Hence we cannot say that to know anything by external perception or testimony is also to know that we know it. These cannot be the content of self-conscious knowledge and their validity is not self-evident.?
It should however be noted here that with the Naiyāyikas the self-evident validity of some cases of knowledge does not exclude their liability to error. For the Mimāṁsaka and the Vedāntist, the self-evident character of a truth means its infallibility which excludes the possibility of any falsification, so that error pertains not to truth but to its applications (vyavahāra). For the Naiyāyikas, however, even necessary truths are empirical and so require confirmation by fresh applications (i.e. pravsttısāmarthya), whenever necessary. But they are different in status from ordinary observation and generalisation. They possess the
1 Anupasys
Dirustasa mastavyabhıcārasankasya avata eva prāmāpyamapumeyavyabhicăriliigagamutthatvät, etc., NVT., PP 12-13; anomānopamāpānuvyavasiyadharmaiņādināmapı. 8v8ta eva prāmanyagraha, etc., NVTP., pp. 119-20; vide aluo TC., 1, pp 277-79, 282-84
· Pratyakşa sabda vijñanayorna svato "vyabhicāragraha iti, etc. NVT, sbid.

Page #129

110
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
bighest degree of certainty which is humanly attainable. Still they may change if, as Hobhouse has said, the constitution of the world changeth. Hence the Nyāya conception of the self-evident validity of some knowledge is different from the Mimāṁsā and Vedānta view of the self-evident validity of all knowledge.
7.
Indian and Western theories of truth
Here we propose to examine the Indian theories of truth, as explained above, in the light of parallel Western theories. With regard to truth there are two main questions, nainely, how truth is constituted, and how truth is known. The first question relates to the nature of truth and the answers to it give us the definitions of truth The second question refers to the ascertainment of truth and the answers to it give us the tests or criteria of truth.
With regard to these two questions there seem to be two possible answers Thus it may be said that truth is a self-evident character of all knowledge Every knowledge is true and known to be true by its very nature Knowledge does not depend on any external conditions either to be made true or to be known as true This is the theory of the intrinsic valıdıty (svatah prāmānya) of knowledge as advocated by the Sāmkhya, Mimāmsā and Advaita Vedānta systems of Indian Philosophy. According to the last two schools, the truth of knowledge consists just in its being uncontradicted (abādhita). The absence of contradiction, however, is not a positive but a negative condition of truth. Knowledge is both made true and known to be true by its own internal conditions It is only falsehood that is externally conditioned. So truth is self-evident, while falsity requires to be evidenced by external grounds. The Sāṁkhya goes further than this.

Page #130

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
111
It maintains that both truth and falsehood are internally conditioned and immediately known, i.e. are self-evident.
There is no exact parallel to the above theory of truth in Western philosophy. It is true that in modern European philosophy knowledge, in the strict sense, is always taken to mean true belief. But truth or validity is not regarded as intrinsic to all knowledge, independently of all external conditions. It is in the writings of Professor L. A. Reid, a modern realist who owns no allegiance to the current schools of realism, that we find some approach to the view that truth is organit to knowledge. But even Reid makes it conditional on knowledge efficiently fulfilling its function, namely, the appichension of reality as it is He thinks that truth is nothing else but knowledge doing its job. Thus le says “Truth is, ideed, simply, .. the quality of knowledge perfectly fulfilling its functions." Again be observes “If knowledge were not transitive, if we were not in direct contact, joined with reality, then all our tests, coherence, correspondence, and the rest, would be worthless"! Here truth is admitted to be a natural function of knowledge, but not as inberent and self-evident in all knowledge. In the theory of intuitionism, we find a close approach to the view of self-evident validity To the question ‘How do we know that a belief is true or valid ?' intuitionism has a simple answer to give, namely, that we know it immediately to be such. As Hobhouse puts the matter “Intuitionism bas a royal way of cutting this, and indeed most other knots. for it has but to appeal to a perceived necessity, to a clear idea, to the inconceivability of the opposite, all of which may be known by simply attending to our own judgment, and its task is done." 2 Among intuitionists, Lossky has made an elaborate attempt to show that truth and
1 L A. Reid, Knowledge and Truth, pp 185, 199, 204.
Hobhouse, Theory of Knowledge, p. 488

Page #131

112
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
""
falsity are known through an immediate consciousness of their objectivity and subjectivity respectively. For him, truth is the objective and falsity the subjective appearance of the object. But how do we know that the one is objective and the other is subjective? The answer given by Lossky as also by Lipps is that we have an immediate consciousness of subjectivity" and " an immediate consciousness of objectivity." To quote Lossky's own words : "It is in this consciousness of objectivity and subjectivity, and not . . . in the laws of identity, contradiction, and excluded middle, that our thought has a real and immediate guide in its search for truth."1
It should be remarked here that the above theories of self-evident truth or intrinsic validity give us a rather jejune and untenable solution of the logical problem of truth. They leave no room for the facts of doubt and falsehood in the sphere of knowledge. But any theory of truth which fails to explain its correlate, namely, falsehood, becomes so far inadequate. Further, it makes a confusion between psychological belief and logical certainty. Psychologically a wrong belief may be as firm as a right one. But this does not mean that there is no distinction between the two. Subjective certitude, as such, cannot be accepted as a test of truth. It is true that the theory of intrinsic validity does not appeal to any test of truth other than the truth itself. It assumes that the truth of knowledge is self-evident, and that we cannot think of the opposite. In fact, however, there is no such selfevident truth. It is only in the case of the self that we can speak of self-evidence in this sense. The self is a self-manifesting reality. It is manifest even in any doubt or denial of its reality. Hence self-evidence belongs really to the self only. It is on the analogy of the self
1 Lossky, The Intuitive Basis of Knowledge, pp. 227-29.

Page #132

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
113
that we speak of the self-evidence of any other truth. A truth is self-evident in so far as it has the evidence of the self or is evident like the self. But as we have just said, there is no such self-evident truth other than the self itself. In the case of any other truth, we can always think of the opposite in a sensible way. That 'two and two make five' is not as nonsensical as 'abracadabra.' Even if the opposite of a certain belief be inconceivable, it does not follow that the belief is infallible. What was once inconceivable 18 now not only conceivable but perfectly true. Hence we cannot say that self-evident validity is intrinsic to all knowledge.
The second answer to the question 'How is truth constituted and known ?' leads us to the theory of extrinsic validity (paratah prāmānya). According to this, the truth of any knowlenge is both constituted and known by certain external conditions. As a general rule, the validity of knowledge is due to something that is not inberent in it. So also the krowledge of validity depends on certain extraneous tests. Validity is thus assigned to one knowledge on the ground of some other knowledge. This is the theory of extrinsic validity as advocated by the Nyāya and the Bauddha systems. In Western philosophy, the correspondence, the coherence and the pragmatist theories of truth all come under the doctrine of extrinsic validity. In each of them the truth of knowledge is made to depend on certain external conditions other than the knowledge itself. According to almost all realists, old and new, it is correspondence to facts that constitutes both the nature and the test of truth. Of course, some realists differ from this general position and hold a different view of the matter. Thus Alexander? makes coberence the
1 Vide The New Realism and Essays in Critical Realism,
: podt, Tome and Derty, Vol. II, pp. 251 f. 15-(1117B)

Page #133

114
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
ground of truth. But in speaking of coherence as determined by reality, he accepts indirectly the theory of correspondence. Reid,' on the other hand, treats correspondence to the given only as a test of truth Russell 2 defines truth in terms of correspondence and accepts coherence as a test of some truths, while others are said to be self-evident. In the philosophy of objective idealism, coherence in the sense of the systematic unity of all experiences is made both the ground and the test of truth. The truth consists in the coherence of all experiences as one self-maintaining and all-inclusive system. It is in this sense that Bosanquet* says that the truth is the whole and it is its own criterion. Truth can only be tested by more of itself.' llence any particular knowledge is true in so far as it is consistent with the whole body of experience. On this view, the truth of human knowledge becomes relative, since coherence as the ideal of completed experience is humanly unattainable. For pragmatism, truth is both constituted and known by practical utility. The truth of knowledge consists in its capacity to produce practically useful consequences. So also the method of ascertaining truth is just to follow the practical consequences of a belief and see if they have any practical value. With this brief statement of the realistic, the idealistic and the pragınatist theories of truth, we proceed to examine the Buddhist and the Nyāya theories of extrinsic validity.
From what we have said before it is clear that the Buddhists adopt the pragmatist theory of truth and reality. For them, practical efficieney is the test of both truth and reality. The real is what possesses practical eficiency
I Knowledge and Truth, Chap VIII
3 Problems of Philosophy, Chaps XII, XIII , Our Knowledge of the External World, p. 58, The Analysis of Mind, p 165.
3 Vide Joachim, The Nature of Truth, Chap III 4 Logs, Vol II, pp 285-87.
5 James, Pragmatism, Lect. VI; Perry, Present Philosophical Tøndencies, Pts. IV, V,

Page #134

tesT OF TRUTH AND ERROR
115
(arthakriyā) and the true is the useful and so practically efficient (arthakriyāsāmarthya). But the pragmatic conception of truth is embarrassed by serious difficulties The Nyāya criticism of the Bauddha conception of pramāņa has brought out some of these difficulties. Here we may note that to reduce the true to the useful is to make it almost meaningless. It is by no means the case that truth is only a matter of practical utility The ato nic and the electron theories of matter make very little difference in our practical life. Similarly, the different theories of truth involve no great difference in their practical consequences. But in the absence of any other test than that of practical utility we cannot say which one is true and which is false. Further, there are certain beliefs which are adınıttedly wrong but which are otherwise useful for certain purposes of life. But no one would claim any truth for a wrong belief on account of its practical utility. Hence the Buddhist and the pragmatist theories of truth cannot be accepted as suund and satisfactory.
The Nyāya theory of truth, it will be seen, combines the correspondence, the coherence and the pragmatist theories with certain modifications. According to it, the truth of knowledge consists in its correspondence with objective facts, while coherence and practical utility are the tests of truth in such cases in which we require a test. It defines the truth of all knowledge as a correspondence of relations (tadvatı tatprakāraka). To know a thing is to Judge it as having such-and-such a character. This knowledge of the thing will be true if the thing has really suchand-such a character ; if not, it will be false. The Nyāya view of correspondence is thus different from the new realistic idea of structural correspondence or identity of contents. That knowledge corresponds to some object does
1
Cf. Obapter III, Sec 3, above.

Page #135

116
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
bot, for the Naiyāyika, mean that the contents of the object bodily enter into consciousness and become its contents. When, for example, I know a table, the table as a physical existent does not figure in my consciousness. This means only that I judge something as having the attribute of ' tableness' which really belongs to it. There is a subjective cognition of a physical object. The one corresponds to the other, because it determines the object as it is, and does not itself become what it is. If it so became the object itself, there would be nothing left on the subjective side that might correspond to the physical object. Nor again does the Nyåya follow the critical realist's idea of correspondence between character-complexes, referred to the object by the knowing mind, and those actually belonging to the object. When we know anything we do not first apprehend a certain logical essence or a character-complex and then refer it to the thing known Our knowledge is in direct contact with the object. In knowing the object we judge it as baving a relation to certain characters or attributes. Our knowledge will be true if there is correspondence between the relation asserted in knowledge, and that existing among facts. Thus my knowledge of a conch-shell as white is true because there 18 & real relation between the two corresponding to the relation affirmed by me On the other hand, the perception of silver in a sbell is false because it asserts a relation between the two, which does not correspond to a real relation between them."
Wuile truth consists in correspondence, the criterion of truth is, for the Nyāya, coberence in a broad sense (sannvāda). But coherence does not here mean anything
1 Cf " Smuth's jodgment that it is the light of a sbip 18 true just because it,' the light, is 10 fact so related to a real sbjp Jones' judgment (that * is the light of a star), on the other hand, 8 false, because this thought is not an approbopsion of the existing present complex fact, light-belonging-to-ship."-Reid, Knowledge and Truth, pp 209-10

Page #136

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
117
of the kind that objective idealism means by it. The Nyaya coherence is a practical test and means the harmony between cognitive and conative experiences (pravṛttisāmarthya) or between different kinds of knowledge (tajjūtīyatva). That there is truth in the sense of correspondence cannot, as a general rule, be known directly by intuition. We know it by inference from the fact that the knowledge in question coheres with other experiences of the same object as also with the general system of our knowledge. Thus the perception of water is known to be valid when different ways of reaction or experiment give us the same experience of water. It is this kind of coherence that Alexander accepts as a test of truth when he says: "If truth is tested by reference to other propositions, the test is not one of correspondence to reality but of whether the proposition tested is consistent or not with other propositions."1 Hobhouse also means the same thing by 'consilience' as a measure of validity. According to him, validity belongs to judgments as forming a consilient system. Of course, he admits that such validity is relative and not absolute, since the ideal of a complete system of consilient judgments is unattainable. The Nyaya idea of samvada or coherence may be better explained as a combination of Reid's methods of correspondence and coherence. If we take the judgment
"
that is the light of a ship,' we can test its truth by what Reid calls the correspondence method "of approaching the light and seeing a ship." This is exactly what the Nyaya means by pravrttisämarthya or successful activity. Or, we can employ, so says Reid, the cheaper coherence method "of comparing this knowledge with other kinds of knowledge and see if it is consistent with them.' In this we have the Nyaya method of testing one knowledge by reference to
8
1 Space, Time and Desty, Vol. II, p 252 The Theory of Knowledge, pp. 499-500 8 Knowledge and Truth, pp. 203-4, 211-12

Page #137

118
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
some other valid knowledge (tajjātīyatva). But the Nyāya goes further than this and accepts practical utility also as a test of truth. Thus the validity of the perception of water may be known from correspondence and coherence in the above sense. But it may be further known from the satisfaction of our practical needs or the fulfilment of our practical purposes in relation to water, such as drinking bathing, washing, etc. But the Nyāya never admits the pragmatist contention that the truth of any knowledge is constituted by its utility or serviceableness. Knowledge is made true by its correspondence to some reality or objective fact. It is true not because it is useful, but it is useful because it is already true Hence truth consists in correspondence and is tested by coherence and practical efficiency
But from the standpoint of the modern Nyāya, all truths do not require to be tested. Some truths are known as such without any test or confirmation. These are manifestly necessary and so self-evident truths. Here the Nyāya view has some affinity with Russell's theory of truth. In both, truth is defined by correspondence to fact, but in different ways. Although truth is thus externally conditioned, some truths are admitted by both to be self-evident. For the Nyāya, however, such truths are only necessary truths or what Russell calls a priori principles of the different kinds of knowledge by acquaintance-sensation, memory, introspection, etc.—which are admitted by Russell to have self-evident truth, it is only introspection or selfconsciousness (anuvyavasāya) that is admitted by the Nyāya as having self-evident valıdıty. The validity of selfconsciousness is self-evident because there is a necessary relation between consciousness and its contents. When I become conscious of a desire for food, I find that my consciousness is necessarily related to the desire, it is the
I Problems of Philosophy, Chaps. XI, XII, XIII.

Page #138

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
119
desire itself as it becomes explicit.' Here I not only know something, but know that I am knowing it, 1.e. the truth of my knowledge is self-evident.
The different theories of truth discussed above may be shown to supplement one another and be reconciled as complementary aspects of a comprehensive theory. The first requisite of such a theory is the independent existence of a world of objects If there were no such world, there would be no ground for the distinction between truth and falsehood Some of our beliefs are true or false according as they are or are not borne out by independent objects or facts. It is because there are certain independent objects, to which our beliefs may or may not conform, that we distinguish between truth and error. Hence we say that truth consists in the correspondence of our knowledge with independent objects or facts. The difficulty on this view, it is generally remarked, is that if the objects are independent of knowledge, we cannot know whether our knowledge corresponds with them or not How can we know what is outside and beyond knowledge, and see that true knowledge agrees with it? The reply to this is that in the case of external objects, physical things and other minds, we cannot straightway know the correspondence between our knowledge and its objects. Still, we cannot deny the reality of these external objects. But for the independent existence of other things and minds we cannot explain the order and uniformity of our experiences and the similarity of the experiences that different in lividuals may have under similar circumstances. That some of our experiences represent the real qualities of things may then be known from the fact that they are given in the same way to
1 Cf C Hartshorne's article in The Monist (Vol XLIV, No 2, p. 171) "Must this (feeling) not be admitted to present an obvious dual aspect of being at once subjective and yet a content or object of consciousness, at once a mode and a datum of awareness?
11

Page #139

120
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
different persons, or to the same persons through different senses. As Professor Price has shown, “sense-data cobere together in families, and families are coincident with physical occupants."1 On the other hand, some of our experiences are not taken to represent the qualities of things, because they do not cohere with other experiences of the same individual or of different individuals. The first kind of experiences is considered to be true and objective, while the second is judged to be false and subjective. Similarly, our knowledge of other minds is true when it correctly represents the contents of those minds It will be false, if what we impute to them forms no part of their actual contents. This shows that it is correspondence to facts that constitutes the nature of truth, although we cannot directly know such correspondence in the case of physical things and other minds. To know this we have to consider if one knowledge coheres with others or the whole body of human knowledge, and also consider if we can successfully act on our knowledge. What is true works, although whatever works is not true. Thus we know the correspondence of knowledge with facts from its coherence and pragmatic value. But to know that a certain knowledge corresponds with facts is to know its truth It does not constitute its truth. The knowledge becomes true if, and only if, it corresponds with facts. We know or test its truth when we find that it is coherent with other parts of our knowledge and our practical activities. So truth is constituted by correspondence with facts and is tested by coherence and practical activity.
The Vedānta view of truth as uncontradicted experience logically implies the coherence theory of truth. That some experience is uncontradicted means that it is different from the contradicted. But to be different from the contradicted
I Cf. Perception, p 802.

Page #140

TEST OF TRUTH AND ERROR
121
means to belong to the body of coherent knowledge. We do not and cannot rightly judge an experience to be uncontradicted unless we relate it to other experiences and find that it is congruous with them. A dream experience is wrongly judged by the dreamer to be uncontradicted and true, because he cannot relate it to his waking experiences. It cannot be said that a dream experience is true for the time being and becomes false afterwards. What is once true is always true. A dream experience may sometimes be judged to be true, but it is really false for all time. And its falsity appears from its incoherence with waking experience. Hence we are to say that an experience is really uncontradicted when it is related to other experiences and is found to be coherent with them
It may be urged against the above view that truth consists in correspondence and is tested by coherence, that it either assumes the truth of the testing knowledge, or must go on testing knowledge ad infinitum. If knowledge is true when it corresponds with facts, and if the correspondence cannot be directly known, then the truth of every knowledge must be tested by its coherence with others. This, however, means that there can be no end of the process of proving knowledge and, therefore, no final proof of any knowledge. To solve this difficulty we must admit that there is at least one case in which knowledge is, by itself, known to be true. We have such a case in selfconsciousness. While the truth of all other knowledge is to be tested by coherence, the truth of self-consciousness is self-evident and requires no extraneous test. The self is a self-manifesting reality. Hence the contents of our mind or the self are manifested by themselves. They are at once existent facts and contents of consciousness. To become conscious of the contents of one's mind is just to make them explicit. What we are here conscious of are not outside or beyond consciousness. Mental contents not
16-(1117B)

Page #141

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
only are, but are conscious of themselves The state of knowledge and the object of knowledge being identical, we cannot strictly speak of a correspondence of the one with the other. Or, if we speak of a correspondence between them we are to say that it is, directly known and so need not be known or tested in any other way. When we feel pain, or know something, or resolve to do anything, we may be conscious of feeling it, or knowing it, or resolving to do it. What we are here conscious of as objects are the objects themselves as they become explicit or conscious of themselves. Such knowledge is, therefore, not only true, but also known to be true by itself. Hence we admit that the truth of self-consciousness 18 self-evident, while all other truths are evidenced by external tests like coherence and pragmatic utility.
122

Page #142

BOOK II
PERCEPTION AS A METHOD OF KNOWLEDGE
(PRATYAKŞAPRAMANA)

Page #143


Page #144

CHAPTER VI
THE DEFINITION OF PERCEPTION
1. Primacy of perception over other methods of knowledge
Perception (pratyaksa), like inference and the rest, is taken to mean both a form of valid knowledge (pramitz) and the means or method of acquiring such knowledge (pramāņa). We are here concerned with them as methods of knowledge. According to the Nyāya, there are four distinct and independent methods or sources of knowledge, namely, perception, inference, comparison and testimony. Of these, perception comes first and is the most fundamental. Of course, the primacy of perception over the other methods of knowledge is not due to anything in the nature of the objects of knowledge. So far as the objects of knowledge are concerned, the methods or ways of knowing stand on the same footing in respect of their value and importance. While there are certain objects which may be known by any of the four methods, there are other objects which must be known by a particular method and cannot be known by any other. The existence of fire at a distant place may be known from the testimony of a reliable person. It may also be known by inference from the observed smoke as a mark of fire. Or, if we take the trouble to go up to the place from which smoke issues forth, we have a perception of the fire on the spot. Hence with regard to such objects as the fire, one method of knowledge is as good and valid as any other. Contrariwise, there are certain cases in which a truth is to be known by some special method. Scriptural

Page #145

126
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
testimony is the only source of our knowledge about supramundane realities. That there is a future life, a heaven or a hell, is to be believed on the authority of the scriptures and cannot be proved by perception or inference. Similarly, our knowledge of the unperceived cause of a perceived effect is derived neither from testupony nor perception, but from inference. Likewise, perception gives us the knowledge of what is directly present to sense and we do not require any inference or testimony for a knowledge of it. In relation to the objects of knowledge, therefore, the methods are sometimes interchangeable and sometimes exclusive With regard to any method of knowledge it may be said that some contents of knowledge or some truths can only be given by it, while others may come from this as well as from the other sources of knowledge. Hence, so far as the contents of knowledge are concerned, there is nothing to distinguish one pramāna or method of knowledge as more fundamental than any other?
Nevertheless there are certain important considerations in favour of the Naiyāyika view that perception is the most primary and fundamental of all the sources of knowledge recognised in any system of philosophy In the first place, perception is the ultimate ground of all knowledge It is true that all knowledge does not arise from perception The empiricists including the Cārvākas are wrong when they suppose that sense-perception is adequate to explain the entire body of human knowledge. According to the Nyāya, perception is not the only ource of our knowledge, but it is the basis of the other sources or methods of knowledge Hence it has been said that all the other methods of knowledge presuppose perception and must be based on knowledge derived from perception. J S. Mill recognised this
1 NB, 1.1.3 2 Sarvapramāņānām pratyakşapūrvakatvat, NVT,1 1 3.

Page #146

THE DEFINITION OF PERCEPTION
127
truth when he said that “the truths known by intuition are the original premises from which all others are inferred.” 1 For the Nyāya, however, perception is the basis on which we have a knowledge of other truths by inference as well as by comparison and testimony. Inference as a method of knowledge depends on perception The first step in ipference is the observation of a mark or the middle term (lingadarśana), and the observation of the relation between the middle and the major term. Hence, inference is defined as that knowledge which must be preceded by perception (talpūrvakam) ? Similarly, upamāna or comparison as a method of naming depends on perception of the points of similarity between two objects So also śabda or testimony is dependent on perception inasmuch as the first step in it is the visual or auditory perception of written or spoken words, and such words must come from a person who has a direct or intuitive knowledge of the truths communicated by him. So we see that perceptual knowledge is the ultimate ground of all other knowledge by inference, comparison and testimony.3
Secondly, the Naiyāyikas observe that perception is the final test of all knowledge We may question the truth of the knowledge derived from inference, testimony, etc., but the truth of perception is in a way beyond question. We may know the same thing by means of testimony, inference and perception But while the knowledge from testimony and inference requires confirmation by perception, the perceptual knowledge of the thing is in need of no further confirmation A man may acquire the knowledge of a thing from some authoritative statement, ie. the testimony of a person. But this generally serves as the starting point for further reflection on the matter and produces a desire to
1 System of Logic, p 3 2 NS & NB, 1 1 5 3 NB & NV, 1.1 6-7

Page #147

128
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
ascertain the truth in a more convincing way, say, by a process of inferential reasoning. But the inference which confirms the testimony may, in its turn, require further verification by way of direct perception of the object. Perceptual verification is thus the final test of all other knowledge and, as such, perception is the most important of all the methods or sources of human knowledge."
In European philosophy the validity of perception as a source of knowledge is rather overstressed by the empiricists and some modern realists. According to them, the truth of perception is unquestionable and self-evident. Thus J. S Mill remarks . " Whatever is known to us by consciousness (intuition), is known beyond possibility of question. What one sees or feels, whether bodily or mentally, one cannot but be sure that one sees or feels."?? So also W. T. Marvin tbinks that “ perception is the ultimate crucial test, and as such, it does not presuppose its own possibility. It simply is ; and the man who questions it assumes it in order to do the questioning.'3 Similarly, Russell tells us repeatedly that the truths of perception are self-evident truths, for which we require no test at all. The Naiyāyikas, however, do not admit that the validity of perception as such is self-evident and unquestionable. That perception is the final test of all other knowledge does not mean that the truth of perception is self-evident or that it cannot but be true. From the standpoint of common-sense to olism they grant that, under normal conditions, wildan is directly perceived is not doubted and so need not be further proved or tested. When however any doubt arises with regard
1 Sä сeyam pramitih pratyaksapară, NB., 1. 1 3. 2 System of Logic, p. 4. 3 The New Realism, pp 66-67.
4 Problems of Philosophy, Chapter XI , Our Knowledge of the External World, p. 72,

Page #148

THE DEFINITION OF PERCEPTION
129
to the validity of perception, we must examine and verify it as much as any other knowledge.
2. The Buddhist definition of perception The Buddhists define perception as the unerring cognition of a given sensuin in complete isolation from all ideata. In it the object of cognition is a unique individual (svalaksana) and the process of cognition is ao mere sensing without any element of ideation (kalpanā) in it. Vasubandhu, a Bauddha logician of the Yogācāra school (circa 480 A..D), characterises perception as a cognition that is directly produced by the object, of which it is the cognition. The cognition of fire, for example, is a perception, if and in so far as it is produced and wholly conditioned by fire as an existent fact On the other hand, the 'cognition of silver' in the presence of an oyster-shell, cannot be called perception, since it is not caused by the object, of which it claims to be the cognition. The silver is non-existent at the time and place at which it seems to be perceived and so cannot causally determine the cognition in question. So also the inferential cognition of fire is distinguished from perception by the fact that it is not produced directly and exclusively by tire as an objective fact. The inferential knowledge depends on such other conscious and unconscious conditions as the cognition of smoke, the association between smoke and fire, memory of the relation between the two and so on. For the same reason, the Buddhists deny the perceptual character of the so-called perceptions of individual objects like the jar, tree, etc. (samostijñāna )What we directly perceive
1 Pratyakşam kalpadăpodh iabhrántam Nyayabindu, Chapter I 2 Tato'rthädvijnanam pratyaksam, NV. & NVTK., 11 4. 3 Ibid. 17—(1117B)

Page #149

130
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
is not the jar or the tree as a unity of the universal and the particular, but some quality or part of it. What is thus directly sensed is next combined with certain images and ideas of other associated qualities or parts and thereby produces the complex cognition of a jar or a tree. In fact, such complex cognitions (samurtijñāna) are not perceptions, since these are not directly produced by the object alone. Rather, they are wrong cognitions based on the hypothesis of universal essences (jātz) underlying the aggregates of parts and qualities constituting individual objects
Dignāga, the greatest Bauddha logician (circa 500 A. D ), brings out the implications of Vasubandhu's definition of perception. If perceptual cognition is solely determined by its object, it must be wholly given and not anywise constructed by the mind Hence Digniga defines perception as a cognition which is not at all subjectively determined and is not modified by ideas or concepts (kalpanā).' The concepts of name, class, quality, action and relation do not enter into the perception of an object. What is perceived by us is a unique individual that does not admit of any description by concepts and words It 18 just what it is immediately sensed to be Words and concepts express such aspects of things as are general or common to many things. But a thing is an individual in so far as it excludes all other things from within itself. Hence what is individual is to be directly felt or intuited, but not expressed by words or concepts from this it follows that perception is just the cognition of an immediately given datum and is completely free from all subjective or conceptual determination It is a pure sensation which cannot be properly described or embodied in verbal judgments.?
1 Vide Pramāṇasamuccaya, Chapter I ? NBT., pp 7.12.

Page #150

THE DEFINITION OF PERCEPTION
131
The Buddhist definition of perception has been criticised and rejected by the Naiyāyıkas It has been pointed out by them that Vasubandhu's definition of perception is too wide. If by perception we are to mean a cognition wbich is objectively determined (tato'rthādujñānam), all true knowledge will have to be regarded as perception. As Bosanquet has rightly pointed out, “reality is operative in truth." 1 Thus a true inference has an objective basis in so far as the conclusion expresses a real relation between two things. So we may say that what is validly inferred is an objective fact which is causally efficient towards the inferential cognition Similar is the case with the other kinds of valid knowledge Even the wrong cognition of silver in a shell is not without some objective basis. The wrong judgment, 'that is silver,' is based on the 'that'as an objective fact Further, on the Bauddha view of universal momentariness (ksanıkavāda), we do not see how perception can have an objective basis. The object being the cause of perception must be antecedent to it. So when the perception is or appears, its momentary cause, namely, the object, must cease to exist The object cannot therefore be the cause of perception. But if perception be not directly produced by the object, we cannot call it perception at all.2
Later Bauddba logicians like Dignāga, Dharmakīrtı and others reduce perception to a mere sensation free from all conceptual determination. This, the Naiyāyikas think, is logically indefensible and arbitrary. None of our ordinary perceptions is a pure sensing of the given datum. On the other hand, perception 18 the interpretation of sensations by associated images and ideas. It is now a commonplace of philosophy that “perception contains not merely sensuous and revived images, but a large element
1 Logic, Vol II, p 289 1 NV & NVT., 1.1 4.

Page #151

132
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
of meaning as well." 1 Perception is not, as the Buddbists think, an un meaning sensation of an indeterminate real called svalakşaņa. It has a definite meaning and refers to a determinate object as that is revealed through sensations. It is only because the Buddhists arbitrarily deny the meaning element in perception that they are forced to exclude the complex cognitions of a jar, tree, etc. (samuştujñāna), from the range of perception. As a matter of fact, these are as good perceptions as any other. If, however, we allow with the Buddhists that perception is a matter of pure sensation, we do not understand how It can at all be conceived or logically defined A pure sensation is an unreal abstraction and not a psychological fact. We cannot point to any of our actual experiences as a case of pure sensation without any element of ideation in it. Such an experience, even if it were real, can hardly be described, far less defined The Buddhist definition of perception is self-contradictory (vyāhata) in so far as it tries to define and determine what is undefinable and indeterminate. Just as what is perfectly unknowable cannot even be known as unknowable, so we cannot consistently determine a perfectly indeterminate experience as perception ?
3. The Jaina, Prābhākara and Vedānta definitions of
perception
It is customary to define perception in terms of sensefunctioning. The ordinary idea is that perception as a
1 Essays in Critical Realism, p 91 9 NV & NVT ,1 1 4; NM, pp 92-93, 97-100, SD., pp 38-39
The notion of an eneffable gengum, like the Buddhist's svalakgana, has also been repudiated of late by some eminent Western thinkers like Whitehead, Heidegger, Rickert, Bosanguet, Deway Whitehead speaks of it as the rensationalist fallacy and Heidegger 88 the illusory notion of mere givennegs, untioged with the "concern" which be holds to be constitutive of experience throughout See Charles Hartshorne's article on " The Intelligibility of Sensations " in The Monist, July, 1994, pp. 161-85.

Page #152

THE DEFINITION OF PERCEPTION
133
form of knowledge is essentially dependent for its origin and distinctive character on the stimulation of the sense-vrgans. There is a departure from this common usage in the definition of pratyaksa or perception given by the Advaita Vedānta, the Prābhākara Mimāmsā and the Jaina system. According to the Prābhākaras, perception is the direct cognition of an object. It is the intuitive or immediate knowledge that we may have of the subject and object of knowledge or of knowledge itself. ' For the Jainas too, pratyakşa is the direct and immediate knowledge of objects. It is of two kinds . mukhya or the primary and samvyavahārika or the practical The first is quite independent of the mind and the senses. While the origin of the second is conditioned by the mind and the senses, its essence lies in the direct cognition of soine object. Hence perception is in its essential nature a direct knowledge of objects.
In the Advaita Vedānta, perception as a pramāna is the unique cause (karana) of perception as a form of valid knowledge (pramā). In this sense, the sense-organs constitute the karana or the unique cause of perceptual cognition. The latter (2 e. pratyaksa pramā), however, is defined as immediate and timeless knowledge (cartanya). Such immediate knowledge is the self itself, because it is only in the self that there is pure immediacy of knowledge. The senses are the karana or the unique cause of perception as immediate knowledge in so far as the mental modıfication (antahkaranavrtti), which manifests it, is due to the function of the sense-organs. What takes place in perception is this. The antaḥkarana or mind goes out through the sense-organ which is in contact with a present perceptible object and becomes so modified as to assume the form
1 Sāksitpratītih pratyaksam meyamārpranāsu sā, Praharanapancıkä pp 51-52.
2 Visada bānasvabhāvam pratyaksim, avgavadbänena pramaņāutaranırapekatayā pratibbāsanam vastupo'nubhavo vaibadyam vijñā pasyeti etc , Prameyakamala martanda, pp. 57-67.

Page #153

134
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
of the object itself. The mind being a material principle, it is quite possible for it to move and attain the dimension of the object of perception. Perception is the immediate knowledge in which the mental modification is non-different (abhinna) from the object and is lit up by the self's light. The immediacy of perception, however, is not due to its being produced by sense-stinulation If that were so, then inference would have been as immediate as perception, since, according to the Naiyāyıkas, the mind as an internal sense is operative in inference On the other hand, there cannot be any immediate knowledge by intuition, because it is not due to the senses The connection of perception with sense-stimulation is more accidental than essential.
That there may be immediate knowledge without any stimulation of sense is admitted by many leading philosophers of the West. Any knowledge by acquaintance, Russell 2 thinks, gives us a direct knowledge of things. “ Direct cognition,” says Ewing,8 " would be quite possible without direct perception” With regard to perception, however, it is generally held in European philosophy that it is the cognition of an object through sensations Here the process of perception begins with the action of an external object. The object produces certain modifications in the sense organ and the nervous system and, through these, gives rise to a mental image corresponding to itself. In the Advaita Vedānta the order of the process is reversed. The mind goes out through sense and reaches the object, and there becomes literally changed into the form of the object. On this view, the perplexing question of the correspondence of a mental image to the object, of which it is the image, does not at all arise. The direct apprehen
1 VP , Chapter I 2 The Problems of Philosophy, Chapter V 3 Mind, April, 1930, p 140

Page #154

THE DEFINITION OF PERCEPTION
135
sion of objects in perception is thus better explained by the Vedānta. It goes further than this and maintains that the essence of perception lies, not in its being produced by sense-object contacts, but in the immediacy (sākṣāttvam) of the knowledge given by it.
4 The Nyāya definitions of perception
The old school of the Nyāya defines perception in terms of sense-object contact (indriyārthasannikarsa) According to it, perception is the valid knowledge produced by the contact of an object with a sense organ. This means that perception as a form of valid knowledge is conditioned in its origin by the stimulation of the senses. This definition of perception follows froin the etymological meaning of the word pratyaksa or perception. Pratyaksa derivatively means the functioning or operation of the sense organs, each in relation to its particular object (akşasyākṣasya prativisayam vrttah pratyaksam)? In relation to a particular object, the sense may function in two ways. It may function to bring about a contact of itself with the object. In this case, the result is a cognition of the object. Secondly, a sense organ may be operative to produce a cognition of some object In this case the sense-function consists in sensecognition, and the result is a judgment of the cognised object as something desirable or undesirable or neither. 8
But even sense-cognition as a form of sense-function is Cconditioned by sense object contact. It follows that the fact of sense-object contact is involved in the very meaning of the word pratyaksa, and is common to all perceptions This common and essential character is made the basis of a definition of perception. For all
1 NS , 1. 1. 4. 2 NB , 1.1.3 3 Ibid.

Page #155

136
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
the older Naiyāyikas, perception is the valid cognition of an object, as distinguished from feeling and volition, and as conditioned by the contact of that object with a particular sense organ.
The above definition of perception as knowledge due to sense-object contact is accepted by common sense and many philosophic systems. In the Vaišeșika philosophy' perception is described as knowledge which is conditioned by the senses The Sāmkhya-Yoga system also defines perception in terms of sense-stimulation. According to the Sāmkhya,? perception is the direct cognition of an object by a sense when the two come in contact with each other The Yoga system holds the saine view while emphasising that perception is especially a cognition of the particulanty of an object. For it perception is 'a mental modification produced by sense impressions and mainly related to the specific characters entering into the nature of the individual object of perception.'8 In the Mimāmsā-sūtra and the Bhāţta school of Mimāmsā, perceplion is defined as 'the cognition wbich is produced by the efficient contact of the senses with theiry objects.'4 Vārşaganya, a follower of the Mimàriisā school, reduces perception just to the functioning of the sense organs."
Although the old Naiyāyıkas are disposed to find fault with the definition of perception given in the other systems of philosophy, they do not dispute the fact of sense-object contact as constituting the essential nature of perception. Thus the Bhātta definition is attacked on the ground that it is not limited to valid perceptions but may apply also to
1 Akşam kşim pratityotpadyate pratyaksam, PS, p 94. : Vide Samkhya sutra and Pravacanabhäxya, 1 89 ; Samkhyakärikā, 8. 3 Vyasa-Bhäşya on Yoga-8īitru, 1 7
4 Satsamprayoge puruşasyendriyānam buddhijabma tatpratyakşain, Mimańså sútra, 1.14 Vzde al87 Sastradīpıkā, p 35; Slokadarttıka, 4 84
5 Sroträdıosttints, Vårsaga ya quoted in NV. & NVT, 11 4.

Page #156

THE DEFINITION OF PERCEPTION
137
doubt and error as forms of perception, in which there is sense-contact with some object.' | This means that a definition of perceptio , as valid knowledge (pramā) should explicitly mention that validity is an essential character of it. But the context makes it unnecessary for the Mīmāmsaka. Similarly, the Sāmkhya view is considered by the Naiyāyika to be inadequate, because it does not expressly state the fact of sense-object contact. Such criticism however is vitiated by a sophistical spirit. It is true that Iśvarakrsna does not use just the phrase 'senseobject contact' in his definition (viz pratuvisayādhyavasāyo drstam). But this follows clearly when we collate the sūtra and the commentares on this point It is therefore unnecessary to dwell at length on the Nyāya criticism of the above definitions of perception. It will suffice for our present purpose to say that the definition of perception as knowledge produced by sense-stimulation or sense-object contact is common to the Nyāya-Vaisesika, the SamkhyaYoga and the Bhātta Mīmāmsā system of Indian philosophy. As we have already said, the same definition of perception is generally accepted in Western psychology and philosophy s
The modern school of the Nyāya takes exception to the old definition of perception in terms of sense-object contact. Kangesa, the father of modern Nyāya) opposes it on several grounds. First, it is objected by him that the definition is too wide, since it applies to inference and memory as forms of knowledge in which there is sense-object contact. The mind as an internal sense is operative and related to the object known through memory or inference. Secondly, the
1 Ibid. 3 NM., P 109
3 Cf. Sir J. H. Parsons, An Introduction to the Theory of Perception, p 3: " Sensory presentations, as we experience them, invariably evolve perception, however naïve it may be, at the start but there 18 no perception without sensory presentation"
18—(1117B)

Page #157

138
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
definition is too narrow in another sense. It precludes the possibility of God's omniscience which is a direct perception of all truth and reality. If there can be no perception without sense-object contact, we can hardly speak of the divine perception, since it is not a sensuous cognition in any sense Further, we do not find that sense-contact, in one or other of its forms is common to all perceptions. Again, to define perception in terms of sense-stimulation is to beg the question What a sense-organ or its stimulation means is to be known from perception. As a matter of fact, we understand what perception is, long before we know what a sense is and which of the senses is concerned in producing it Hence to explain perception by sense-stimulation is to explain the obscurum per obscurius ' In view of such defects in the old definition, the modern Naiyāyikas propose to define perception as immediate knowledge It is the character of immediacy (sāksātkāritvam) that is common to all perceptions The visual, auditory and other binds of perception are alıke connected with the feeling that something is immediately known by the subject or the knower. Another definition of perception, given by the modern Nyāya, Is that it is knowledge which is not brought about by the instrumentality of any antecedent knowledge, This definition applies to all cases of perception, human 6r divine. At the same time it excludes all other kinds of knowledge, such as inference, comparison and testimony Inference is due to the previous knowledge of a fixed relation between two things (vyāptijñāna) In upamāna or comparison the operative cause of knowledge (jñānakarana) is the knowledge of similarity between two things (sādrśyajñāna). Knowledge by testimony is brought about by the understanding of the meanings of words (padajñāna). So
1 TC , I, pp 539-13. 2 Pratyaksasya sāksātkåritvam lakşanan, TC , ibid 3 Jhāpäkaranakam jāpamiti tu vayam, TC, I, p 562

Page #158

THE DEFINITION OF PERCEPTION
also memory depends for its origin on some direct experience in the past (purvānubhava). It is only in the case of perception that our knowledge is not caused by previous experience. It cannot be said that perception is entirely undetermined by previous experience. A determinate (savikalpaka) perception of an object, as having certain attributes and belonging to a class, is conditioned by the previous knowledge of those attributes as standing for a certain class of things But even here our preception of the object is only conditioned but not caused by the previous knowledge (jñānajanya and not jñānakaraṇaka).' The present perception of the book before me does not arise out of my previous knowledge about books, although the character of that perception is determined by such antecedent knowledge. At least the perception is not the result of a conscious application of antecedent knowledge to a present case. The Buddhist definition of perception as knowledge which is directly produced by the object alone, excludes all the conscious and unconscious conditions of knowledge from perception except the object The modern Nyaya, however, excludes all the conscious conditions of knowledge from the definition of perception above given. For it, perception is not entirely undetermined by previous experience. But even if it be determined by previous experience, it is not consciously brought about by that experience. Hence perception has been defii ed as the knowledge which is not brought about by the instrumentality of any antecedent knowledge.
In the syncretist school of the Nyaya, attempts have been made to reconcile the older definition of perception with the modern. Among the ancient Naiyayikas, Udayana, Vardhamana and others have suggested that the definition of perception, as given in the Nyaya Sutra in terms of sense-object contact, applies only to ordinary human perception (laukika
1 Op cit, pp. 552-53
139

Page #159

140
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
mātravişayatvāt).' The science of logic is concerned with the conditions or grounds of valid knowledge. It is not interested in the eternal and unconditioned knowledge of the divine being. Hence the sūtia gives a definition of such perception as is due to certain specific causes (pramāna). In view of this it has been suggested by some syncretist logicians that for normal human perception the definition is that it is knowledge produced by sense-object contact But when we take perception in a wider sense so as to cover ordinary and extraordinary human perceptions as well as the eternal perception of the divine being, we should define it as immediate (aparoksa) knowledge, oi as knowledge which is not brought about by antecedent knowledge (jñānākaranaka). Kesavamıśra in his Tarkabhāsā goes further and takes the old and modern definitions of perception to mean the same thing (According to him, perception is the source of valid immediate knowledge and immediate knowledge is that which is brought about by sense-object contact)' Hence for knowledge there is no distinction between what is immediate and what is sensed Rather immediate knowledge is just the product of sense-stimulation.
Of the two definitions of perception given above, that proposed by the modern Nyāya seems to be more acceptable. That perception is generally conditioned by sense-stimulation or sense-object contact is true as a matter of fact. Still this fact does not constitute the essential or the universal character of all perceptions There are cases of knowledge which are undoubtedly perceptual in character and yet not brought about by sense-object contact. Instances to the point are to be found not only in the intuition of seers and
1 Vide Udayana's Kusumängalt and Vardhamana's Prakāśa, 4-5
2 Aparok sapramă vyāptam pratyakşam anyathā laukikapratyaksamätra viiaksāyāmipdriyajunya pramasādhakatamam pratyakşam, TR and 88, pp 57-59
3 Bākşātkāripramākaraṇam pratyaksam, sāksātkāriņi ca prama salvocyate yendri. yajā, TB., p 6.

Page #160

THE DEFINITION OF PERCEPTION
141
God's omniscience, but in such abnormal perceptions as illusion, liallucination, dream, delirium and the like In these cases we have perceptions of objects that are not in actual contact with our senses. No doubt they are all cases of wrong knowledge, but that they are actual perceptions we cannot dispute. When we have such experiences or when afterwards we recollect them, we feel that we did perceive certain things which we should not have so perceived. These then are significant experiences which show that perceptual knowledge is not essentially a matter of senseobject contact. Similarly, any ordinary valıd perception is found by analysis to contain elements wluch are not sensations in any sense When we perceive an orange from a distance, we have a sensation of its colour but not of its smell, taste and touch Still we perceive all these qualities as constituents of the total percept! Hence it may legitimately be said that sense-stimulation is not the essence of perception. Wherein that essence lies we may also find in the light of the above instances They serve to show that we feel sure to perceive anything that is directly piesented to us. It does not matter much whether the direct presentation, which we call perception, is right or wrong, is by way of sense or not. (Hence we may say that to perceive a thing is to know it immediately) The modern Nyāya hits upon a truth when it defines perception as immediate knowledge, although it recognises the fact that perception is generally conditioned by sense-object contact. The Prābhākara Mīmāmsā and the Advaita Vedānta are at one with the modern Nyāya in recognising this truth about the essential nature of perception This is also admitted by Hobhouse when he says that the common and essential
1 Cf L 8 Stebbing, Logic in Practice, p 13 " It is true that such judgments ("That 18 a cow,' 'Here 18 a pen') go beyond what 18 directly given to sense, but it does not follow that they are reached by inference Certainly such judgments may be erroneous. None of these is completely trustworthy, but they are all we have."

Page #161

142
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
character of simple ideas of sensation and reflection lies, not in their dependence on any sense organ, or any special kind of physiological stimulus, but in their immediate presence to consciousness. Hence while admitting that apprehension, in the sense of sensation or perception, is conditioned by both the sense organ and its stimulation, We defines it as the knowledge of what is immediately present to consciousness.)
1 Hobhouse, The Theory of Knowledge, Pt 1, Ch I Dr Stebbing seems to endorse the definition of percepti nas immediate knowledge when she observes that in perceptual judgments we merely record wliat we take to be directly gwen Vide op cit. p 13

Page #162

CHAPTER VII
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
1 The Senses (indriya)
From the Nyāya standpoint perception is an immediate valid cognition of reality, due to some kind of sense-object contact. As such, perception involves four operative conditions or causes, namely, objects, senses, mind and self. What objects can be perceived and how they are perceived by us, we shall see in the next chapter. Here we propose to consider, from the Naiyāyıka standpoint, the psychological questions as to the nature and function of sense, mind and self in perception.
It is generally admitted that perception is primarily conditioned by the activity of the senses in relation to some objects. Hence perception is usually defined in terms of sense-stimulation Even those who refuse to do so have to admit sense-activity as a factor conditioning all perception But there is some difference of opinion as to the exact nature of the senses and their functions in perception. According to the Buddhists, the senses are the external organs (golaka) occupying different parts of the surface of the body The visual sense, for example, is the pupil of the eye, since objects can be seen only when the pupil is in order but not otherwise Thus the endorgans are entrusted by the Buddhists with the function of perception and therefore spoken of as the senses, For the Jainas a sense is the physical organ with a
1 Golakasyendriyatvamiti Bauddhāh, NSV., 3. 1. 30.

Page #163

144
specific energy (śakti).1 According to the Samkhyas, the senses are not physical bodies like the pupil of the eye, but modifications of the subtle material principle called ahamkara. They think that a physical (bhautika) organ cannot account for the perception of distant objects. In perception the senses must function in direct contact with the objects of perception But a physical organ like the eye-pupil cannot have direct contact with an object lying at a distance or behind a glass. This is possible only if the sense organ be all-pervading in character and not a limited physical substance So the Samkhyas think that the senses are modifications of a subtle all-pervading matter (āhamkārika) and are themselves all-pervading in character.2
The Nyaya rejects both the Bauddha and the Samkhya View about the nature of the senses It agrees with the Mīmāmsă and the Vedanta in holding that the senses are neither the end-organs nor modifications of any all-pervading subtle matter According to these systems the external senses are material substances constituted by the physical elements (bhautika) and localised in the defferent endorgans In the Nyaya system, a sense is defined as a supersensible organ of knowledge having its locus in the animal organism A sense cannot itself be sensed on per
ceived. The existence of the senses is not a matter of direct
3
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
perception for us It is by means of inference or reasoning that we know their existence. The eye cannot perceive itself. But that there is a visual sense, follows from the. general law that every function is conditioned by some organ. So it has been said that a sense is what cannot be sensed
1 Vide Prameyakamalamärtanda, p 61
2 Ahamkāropādānakamındriyam,
Tattvakaumudi, 26 Cf NSV, ibid.
3 NS, 1 1 12, VP, Ch VII, SD, p 36
4 Sarinasamjuktam jñānakar pamatindrıyamındriyam, TB, p 19 Cf HH Price, Perception, p. 25 "By senses' I do not mean' sense-organs but sense-faculties,' 1 e the power of being acquainted with this or that kind of sense-datum."
"

Page #164

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
but must be inferred as an organ necessary for the function of perception. Another definition of sense, given by some Naiyayikas (e. g. Gangeśa and Viśvanatha), is that it is the medium of a contact between the mind and an object to produce such knowledge as is different from memory.1 This definition, however, is not applicable to mind as a sense, since it cannot be said to be the medium of contact between itself and objects like pleasure and pain The Sāstradīpikā defines sense as what produces a clear and distinct knowledge of the object it is brought in contact with. This definition holds good with regard to all the senses including the mind.
According to the Nyaya and the Mimāmsā, there are six sense organs. Of these some are called external and some internal (bahyamabhyantaram). There is only one internal sense called manas or mind. This will be separately dealt with in the another section. There are five external senses, namely, the olfactory, the gustatory, the visual, the cutaneous and the auditory. These senses are physical in character, because they are constituted by the physical elements. But for their physical character we cannot explain the limitation of perception to a particular time and space. If the senses were, as the Samkhyas say, non-physical and all-pervading principles, we should have simultaneous perceptions of all objects in the world. Each sense is capable of revealing the existence of one particular class of objects. A sense organ is constituted by the physical element whose qualities are sensed by it. It possesses the specific attribute of its constituent physical element and is therefore capable of perceiving the qualities belonging to it.1
1 SM, 58, TC, I,
2
Vide p. 36
3 NS and SD, ibid
4 NSV., 3132,
145
19-(1117B)
, pp 550 51

Page #165

146
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The olfactory sense (ghrana) is the organ of apprehending smell. It must have the quality of smell in it in order to apprehend smell in other things As such, it is constituted by the earth, to which smell originally belongs as an attribute. The sense of smell is said to have its seat in the forepart of the Lasal cavity (nāsāgravarti).1 This, however, is contradicted by modern psychology which holds that the organ of smell is a mucous membrane lining the roof and part of the walls of the extreme upper portion of the nasal cavities.' 2
(
The gustatory sense (rasana) is the condition of tastesensations. It is constituted by the physical element called water, because it is possessed of the specific attribute of that element, viz. taste It is located in the forepart of the tongue (phvāgravartı) But the localisation of the sense of taste in the tip of the tongue does not agree with the finding of scientific psychology From it we learn that the endorgans of taste, .e. the taste-bulbs occur largely in the posterior part of the tongue The tip of the tongue is especially sensitive to sweet taste. As such, it may be said to be the organ of certain tastes
The visual sense (caksu) is the ground of colour-sensations and is itself coloured It has its locus in the pupil of the eye. It is constituted by a luminous substance called tejas or light In the case of the visual sense the constituent element of light has no manifest form and touch (anudbhūtarūpasparśa). The sun as a luminous orb has both form and touch manifest in it Hence it is that the one cannot be, while the other is, perceived by us The account of the visual sense given here is in substantial agreement with the modern theory of vision, although it lacks most of its finer details. It will have the support of
ٹی
1 TB, 1b
2 Vide Titchener, Text-Book of Psychology 3 Ibid

Page #166

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION 147 modern optics which recognises the dependence of visual sensation on the energy of ligbt and the presence of a colouring matter behind the lens, and treats the retina as the organ of vision.'
The cutaneous sense (tvak) is the source of touch-sensations and temperature-sengations. It is constituted by the physical element air, because, like the air, it manifests the quality of touch. The locus or the end-organ of the sense of touch is the whole skin of the body, from head to foot, outside and inside its surface ? From a common-sense standpoint no distinction is here made between the different sensations of touch or pressure and those of warmth and cold. In truth, the cutaneous sense is highly complex. Many psychologists distinguish between four cutaneous senses, namely, those of pressure, warmth, cold, and pain. The Naiyāyıkas do not go so far in their account of the cutaneous sense, but describe both pressure and temperature as touch sensations. Nor do they subscube to the view that the sense of touch is the primitive sense, from which the other external senses develop by increasing differentiation. “Touch,” Aristotle observed, “is the mother of the senses." Modern psychologists also think that “ starting from this mode of sensibility as a basis the other senses develop by processes of increasing complexity and refinement." 4 The Naiyāyikas oppose this hypothesis on the ground that the sense of touch cannot, in any degree, perform the function of the other senses in those who are deprived of them."
The auditory sense (śrotra) is the source of sensations of sound. It has its seat in the drum of the ear. It is possess
1 Ibid 2 TB , pp 20, 24 3 Titchener, op cit. 4 Hollingworth, Psychology p 456. 6 NB., 3.1 51-63

Page #167

148
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
ed of the quality of sound. As such, it is identical with a portion of the physical element ākāśa, as that is present in and limited by the ear-hole. It is not a separate substance, but is a limited portion of ākāśa itself, since the quality of sound belongs originally to ākāśa.' According to the Vedānta, however, sound is not exclusively a property of ākāśa, since it is perceived in the air and other elements as well. But it admits that the sense of hearing is constituted by the physical element of akāśu.The Mīmāmsā differs here from both the Nyāya and the Vedānta in holding that the auditory sense is a portion of space (digbhāga) enclosed within the aural cavity. Thus all the three systems agree in holding that the five external senses are physical entities constituted by the physical elements.
To the above list of the six senses, recognised by the Nyāya and the Mīmāmsā, the Sāmkhya system adds five other senses. These are the five senses of action (karmendriya). They are called speech, hands, feet, rectum and the sex-organ, and perform respectively the functions of speaking, prehension, locomotion, evacuation and reproduction. Thus the Sāmkbya gives us a list of eleven sense-organs. The Vedānta accepts this with one exception. It excludes the mind or antahkarana from the list of the senses. The Nyāya objects to this long list on the ground that the assumption of a sense for every function will lead to countless senses. If by sense we mean, as we should, a bodily organ of some special kind of perception (sākṣātpratītisādhana), then the organs of action cannot be called sense organs. They do not give us any perceptions of a new thing or quality other than those connected with the six
1 TB , P 20. 2 VP , Ch VII. 3 SD, p. 36 • Sankhyakärika, 26 & 28. OVP., Ch. VII

Page #168

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
149
senses of smell, taste, sight, touch, hearing and the mind.1
The Naiyayikas' enumeration of the senses, it will be seen, is different from that usually given in Western psychology. Of the six senses enumerated by them, mind as an internal sense finds no place in modern psychology, while a number of internal senses is added to the five external senses recognised by them. These are the kinæsthetic senses. Then we are told that there are certain organic sensations which are derived from the internal organs of the body. These too will have to be regarded as senses if we seriously accept the view of organic sensations. Further, the cutaneous sense is subdivided into the pressure sense, the temperature senses and the pain sense. Of these, the first two, namely, the pressure and temperature senses are included by the Naiyayikas in the sense of touch, since, according to them, warmth and cold are only different kinds of touch sensations. Hence in addition to the five senses of the Naiyayikas, we have to admit a pain sense, several kınæsthetic senses and the vital or organic senses. These are supposed to be necessary to explain the sensation of pain, the perceptions of movement and position, resistance and weight, and other organic sensations connected with the abdominal organs, the digestive and urinary systems, the circulatory and respiratory systems and the genital systems.
It seems to me, however, that this long list of the senses, to which Western psychology commits us, has its basis in an unsound epistemology. A careful epistemological analysis of what are called sensations will show that they are cognitive mental states which acquaint us with the qualities of things. A sensation has, therefore, a cognitive value and has reference to some given datum The cognitive value of a sensation lies in its being the basis of our perception of
1 NVT., p. 531; NM., pp. 482 f.

Page #169

150
the thing which produces the sensation Another characteristic of sensations is that we can have images corresponding to them at the time when they are past. Judged by such criteria, it is very doubtful if we can legitimately speak of a sensation of pain or of kinæsthetic and organic sensations. While touch, warmth and cold are qualities of things, pain cannot be referred to anything as its quality. We feel pain indeed, but do not perceive anything as painful, just as we perceive a rose as red when it produces the sensation of red in us. We can hardly form an image of a pain previously felt in the same way in which we can image a previously experienced colour or sound Hence pain is better characterised as a feeling, rather than as a sensation Similarly the so-called organic sensations may be shown to be feelings aroused by certain states of the vital organs, or by the ordinary sensations of pressure, warmth, etc. Thus according to Titchener,'' the sense of satiety, of a full stomach would come from an upward pressure against the diaphragm. Thirst appears as a diffuse pressure or as a blend of pressure and warmth. There are times when the separate heart-beats are clearly sensed as dull throbbing pressure' Titchener says further that the special sensations of the genital system appear first as an excitement, then as gratification and thirdly as relief. But all these are plainly feelings, and not sensations in the proper sense Lastly, what are called kinæsthetic sensations are analysable into certain feelings and ordinary sensations produced by different kinds of bodily activity. A muscular sensation is ordinarily a dull and diffuse pressure upon the skin. With increasing intensity it takes on a dragging character and sometimes passes into dull pain.' The articular sensation is said to be a massive complex of sensations in the wrist-joint whose quality is not distinguishable from that of cutaneous pressure.' The per
6
C
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
1 Vide Text-Book of Psychology, pp 160-92

Page #170

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
151
ceptions of the movement and position of our limbs, with closed eyes, and those of the weight and resistance of other bodies are said to be based upon the articular sensations. But we have no specific sensations of movement and position, resistance and weight In fact, none of them can be treated as a sense-datim lihe colour and sound. Hence we Tequire no separate senses for their perceptions If, then, the so-culed muscular and articular sensations can be analysed into sensations of pressure and feelings of strain and pain, we see no reason why we must adinit separate senses for them We admit different external senses for the different kinds of sensations, like colour, sound, etc , because we cannot analyse any of them into any other The sensations of one sense are quite distinct from those of any other sense. But even those who speak of the kinæst hetic senses would admit that 'the kinæsthetic sensations are, in general, very like the cutaneou-, aud, in one case, indistinguishable from cutane vus pressure.' Supposing that there are kınæsthetic senses, we ask: What ensa or sense-qualities do they acquaint us with ? Certainly, movement and position, resistance and weight are not sensa like colours and sounds. There being no other distinct sensa for them, we are to say that the kinæsthetic sensations, like the alleged sensation of m ervation, are really feelings produced by bodily movements. Accordingly, the so-called kinæsthetic senses will have to be regarded as organs of action and not of sensation
2
Function of the senses
The function of the senses is to produce perception of objects. For a sense organ, to function is to give us immediate knowledge about certain objects. How, then, do the senses function to give us perception of objects ? Is the activity of the senses conditioned by their contact with the

Page #171

152
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
objects of perception ? Or, do they give us perception of objects without any contact with them ?
According to the Buddhists, the senses function without direct contact with the objects of perception. They are all “distance receptors" (aprāpyakāri), and do not require im. mediate contact with their objects This is especially seen in the case of the senses of sight and bearing. We see far-off objects that cannot have any direct or approximate contact with the eyes We hear sound produced at a long distance from our ears. Similarly, the eye perceives objects much larger than itself and so incapable of being covered by it. Again, the eye and the ear can perceive the distance and direction of sights and sounds respectively. This they could not, if, like the senses of smell, taste, and touch, they were in immediate contact with their objects. Lastly, many of us can, at the same time, see the same object or hear the same sound from different places. Conversely, one man can, almost at the same time, see two things or hear two sounds, fairly apart from each other. This shows that the senses of sight and hearing may function without actual contact with their respective objects.
According to the Nyāya, Sārkhya, Mimārsā and Vedānta systems, the senses can perceive only such objects as are in direct or indirect contact with them (prāpyakāri). This is obvious in the case of the so-called lower senses, namely, touch, taste and smell. Sensations of touch and taste arise only when the sense-organs are in immediate contact with their respective objects. To taste a thing is to place it in direct contact with the tongue. To touch a thing is to bring it in contact with the skin. Sense-object contact as a condition of olfactory sensation is no less real, although it may sometimes be less obvious. If the smelling object be in our immediate surrounding, there is obvious
1 NV and NVT., 1.1.4.

Page #172

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
153
contact of it with the olfactory organ. If it be at a distance from us, then the odorous particles given off by the object are brought in actual contact with the sense organ by currents of air. In the case of the lower senses, all systems of philosophy admit a direct sense-object contact. It is also admitted that the senses of smell, taste and touch remain passive in their end-organs where they are met by their respective stimuli. The remaining two senses of sight and hearing also act in contact with their objects, although not quite as directly as the rest. According to the Vedānta, the sense of hearing travels to the sounding objects and gives us sensations of sound. The Nyāya, however, agrees with modern science in holding that sound-waves sent by the object are received into the ear-passage and there perceived as sound : According to both the Nyāya and the Vedānta, the visual sense reaches out to its object and gives us coloursensations This is why the eye and the ear can perceive the distance and direction of their respective objects. While in modern science visual sensation is believed to be due to the transmission of light-waves from the object tu the eye, in Indian philosophy it is explained by the emanation of lightrays from the eye to the object. Ordinarily the colour-rays are not visible, but are inferred as the inedium of senseobject contact in visual perception. Still we may perceive them under certain special circumstances, as when they emanate from the eyes of cats and other animals in a dark night. The uninformed and the uncultured may not admit sense-object contact in the perception of distant objects, because the medium of such contact is imperceptible. But that there cannot be any perception without sense-object contact is implied in all cases of obstructed sense-activity (āvaraṇopapattı). We cannot see things hidden behind an
1 NM., p 479. · VP , Ch I
3 BP , 165-66 20—(1117B)

Page #173

154
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
opaque body. Again, what seems to be a simultaneous perception of objects occupying different places, is really a case of different perceptions occurring in quick succession. We perceive a near object earlier than a remote one, because our senses take a longer time to reach the latter. Hence sense-object contact is a condition of all perceptions.1
According to all the Naiyayikas, sense-object contact (indriyarthasannikarsa), which is the cause of perception, is of six kinds First, we have a case of direct contact which consists in the conjunction (samyoga) between sense and its object. In the visual perception of a substance like the jar, there is an immediate contact of the eyes with the object. The visual sense finds its way to the jar and becomes conjoined with it Secondly, there may be an indirect contact of sense with its object through the mediation of a third term that is related to both When we see the colour of the jar, our eyes come in contact with the colour through the medium of the jar The jar is conjoined with the eyes on the one hand, and contains the colour as an inherent quality of it, on the other. Here the contact between sense and object is due to the object's (here colour) inseparable relation to what is conjoined with sense. Hence this sense-object contact is called samyukta-samavāya or a relation of inherence in what is conjoined to sense. Thirdly, sense-obtect contact may be more indirect than what we find in the preceding case. It may be due to the mediation of two terms which, by their relation, connect sense with its object. When by means of the eyes we perceive a universal like colourness' (rūpatvādisāmānya) inhering in the jar's colour, there is contact of the eyes with the object' colourness through the medium of the two terms' jar' and 'colour.' This sense-object contact is called samyuktasamaveta-samavāya, since it is due to the object's
9
1 NV. and NVT., 1.14; NM., pp. 479 f.

Page #174

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
155
inherence (samavāya) in something (here colour) which is inseparably related to (samaveta) what (here jar) is conjoined (samyukta) to sense. The fourth case of indirect sense-object contact is called samavāya or inherence. Here the sense is in contact with its object in s ) far as the object inheres as a quality in the sense itself. This is illustrated in the auditory perception of sound. The ear's contact with sound is due simply to the latter's inherence as a quality in its own substance, ākāśa, which constitutes the auditory sense. In the fifth case sense-object contact is called samaveta-samavāya or the relation of inherence in that which inheres in sense Here the sense is in contact with its object through the medium of a third term that is inseparably related to both Thus in the auditory perception of the universal 'soundness' (sabdatva), the ear is in contact with the object 'soundness,' because it inberes in sound which, in its turn, inberes as a quality in the ear. The last type of sense-object contact is called višeşaņatā or višesyamiseșuņabhāva. In it the sense is in contact with its object in so far as the object is a qualification (višeşana) of another term connected with sense It is by means of such sense-object contact that the Naiyāyıkas explain the perceptions of non-existence (abhāva) and the relatiou of inherence (samavāya).' It takes different forms according to the different ways in which the mediating term is related to sense. Thus It is called samyukta-visesaņatā when the object is adjectival (višeșana) to that wbich is conjoined (samyukta) to the sense organ. This is illustrated by the visual perception of the non-existence of a jar in a certain place. Here the eye is in contact with non-existence as a qualification (višeşaņa) of the place which is in conjunction (samyukta) with the eye. Similarly, it is called samyukta-samavetaviseșaņatā when the sense is related to an object that is adjectival (višeşana) to
1 BP. & 8.1, 59-62

Page #175

156
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
what inheres (samaveta) in that which is conjoined (samyukta) to sense. Thus in the perception of the nonexistence of sound in the odour of the carth, our sense is in contact with the non-existence as a qualification of odour which inheres in the earth as conjoined to the sense Or, it may be called samavetavisesanatā when the object of perception is a qualification (visesana) of that which mberes (samaveta) in sense Thus when we perceive that there is no odour in sound, our sense is in contact with the nonexistence of odour as a qualification of sound which inberes in the auditory organ. So too with regard to the other forms of this kind of sense-object contact. These have been collectively called 11śesanatā or the contact of sense with that which is adjectival to another term connected with sense 1 The Vedāntins also recognise these six kinds of sense-object contact But they do not admit the perception of nonexistence (abhāva) and inherence (samavāya) : We shall discuss this point afterwards.
With regard to perception, it has been asked What is the karaṇa or the unique cause of perception ? Is it sense or sense-object contact or something else? According to the older Naiyāyikas, sense-object contact (sunnikarsa) is the karana of perception, since it is the immediate antecedent to the appearance of the phenomenon of perception. The contact of sense with its appropriate object does not normally fail to produce a perception of it. Hence it is that sensefunction or sense-contact should be recognised as the karana or specific cause of perception. Modern Naiyāyıkas, however, hold that the sense organ is the karana of perception." A haraṇa is the unique operative cause of an effect (vyāpāravadasādhāraṇa-kārana). It is something that produces the
1 SM , 61. 2 VP , Chaps I & VI 3 NB, NV & NVT , 1.1. 3-4. 4 BP. & SM., 68.

Page #176

157
effect by its operation and not the operation itself. The senses are such causes as produce perception by their activity or contact with the objects. As such, it is the sense (indriya) that should be called the karana of perception. Kesava Miśra reconciles these views by reference to the different kinds of perception. He thinks that sense and sense-object contact are the karanas of nirvikalpaka and savikalpaka perceptions respectively. Even nirvikalpaka cognition may be taken as karana in relation to cognitions of the values of objects for us (hānopādānopek sābuddhayah). Others, however, think that sense is the karana of all kinds of perception.'
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
3
The nature and function of the mind (manas)
It is with some hesitation that we use the word mind for manas in connection especially with the Nyaya philosophy In Western philosophy mind is generally taken to mean both the subject of consciousness or the self and the totality of conscious states and processes in which the self is manifested In this sense mind corresponds roughly, not to the manas, but to the atman or soul in the Nyaya system Of course, among European thinkers there are some, the materialists and some behaviourists, who reduce mind or self to a function of the body Thus understood, mind stands for just what the Carvākas mean by atman or the self In deference to the common usage of language we propose to use the word mind for manas, pointing out the differences in their meaning.
According to the Nyaya-Vaiśesikas, manas or mind is a sense like the senses of taste, smell, etc. It is an internal sense having its locus in the heart (hṛdayantarı artı).2 In the Samkhya and Mīmāmsā systems also mind is treated as
1 TB., p. 5.
2 TB., p 20

Page #177

158
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
2
an internal (antara) sense.' 1 The Samkhya considers it to be an unconscious product of subtle matter (aham kāra) 2 For the Nyaya-Vaiseşikas, mind is an eternal substance which is different from the physical substances. Unlike the external senses, mind is non-physical (abhautika), 2.e. it 18 not constituted by any of the physical elements of earth, water, etc It is not, like the external senses, possessed of any specific attribute of the physical elements, nor is it limited to the perception of any particular class of objects. As an internal sense it is concerned in all knowledge in different ways It is atomic and exists in contact with the soul (anvatmasamyagı). The mind as a sense cannot be perceived, but is known by inference (na pratyakṣamapı tranumānagamyam) *
3
Just as external perception depends on the external senses, so internal perception depends on an internal sense, called manas Every perception requires the contact of an object with its special sense organ We have perceptions of such subjective facts as pleasure, pain, desire, aversion and the like. These perceptions cannot be due to the senses of sight, hearing, etc, since they arise even without these senses. Hence there must be an internal sense to produce internal perceptions The mind is also a condition of external perception. The external senses can perceive objects only when they are in contact with the mind. To perceive an object the mind must attend to it through the senses. We do not perceive things in a state of absentmindedness, even though our senses be in physical contact with them " So also the mind is a condition of such subjective states and processes as doubt and
1 SD., p. 36
4
Samkhyakarika, 27.
3 NB., 1. 1. 4; TB., pp. 23, 30.
4 BP. 57, 85.
5 TB., ibid.

Page #178

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
159
dream, memory and inference, etc. Some Naivāyikas hold that although the mind is a condition of all knowledge, yet it does not act as a sense in the case of memory, inference, etc., because that will render them indistinguishable from perception. But it may be said that in memory and inference the mind gives us a knowledge of objects, not by its contact with them, but through some other knowledge, as a past experience and the understanding of a universal relation (2 yūpti). Hence memory and inference are not cases of perception, although they are dependent on the function of the mind as a sense.'
That manas or the mind is and is atomic follows also from the order of succession among our cognitions. At any moment of our waking life various objects are acting upon our body. All the external senses may thus be in contact with their objects at the same time. But we cannot have more than one cognition at one moment. Hence it follows that the senses of smell, taste, etc., must come in contact with some internal organ in order to produce cognitions. This internal organ is manas or the mind. It has no extension or magnitude (avyāpi), because it cannot come in contact with more than one thing at one time. If the mind were an extended organ, it would have had simultaneous contact with more senses than one and we could have many perceptions at one and the same time. This being not the case, we are to say that the mind is atomic (aņuparimāņa).
The Vedānta view of the mind is different from those of the other systems. According to it, manas is that function (vrttı) of the antahkarana which is concerned in the state of doubt. The same antaḥkaraṇa is called buddhi, aharnkāra
1 NB., 1.1 16 2 TC., I, p. 550, SM., 51 3 SD., p. 36. 4 N B., I. 1. 16, 3. 2. 60-68, BP., 85.

Page #179

160
and citta, according as it functions respectively in the states of decision (niscaya), conceit (garva) and recollection (smarana). It is the antahkarana which performs these and other mental functions, such as cognition, feeling, desire, etc. Hence by the mind we are to understand, not manas, but antahkarana as conceived by the Vedantist According to him, the mind is not an atomic substance, but an inert principle of limited dimension (parıcchinna). Although inert (jada) in itself, it manifests pure intelligence (cartanya) and is therefore regarded as intelligent in a secondary sense (jñānatvopacāra). The mind is not a sense (indriya) whose existence is proved by inference from the perception of pleasure, pain, etc Direct knowledge or perception is not due to sense-object contact We have a direct perception of the mind when we perceive the qualities of pleasure, pain, etc., in it And a perception of these mental states does not require any internal sense, called manas, in the other systems
1
It is to be observed here that the view of mind as sense is not acceptable Those who take the mind as internal sense deny that it is a physical (bhautha) thing of any kind. So the mind as sense cannot be a physiological apparatus like the brain or any part of it that is directly correlated to conscious processes. The mind as a nonphysical sense is analogous to the inner sense conceived as a special faculty of inner experience in traditional Western psychology. But the one is quite as unnecessary as the other to explain the facts of consciousness It is the internal perception of pleasure, pain, etc., that is held to require an internal sense. But if by sense we mean, as the Naiyayikas do mean, a medium of contact between mind and hen the mind itself cannot be a medium of
3
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
4
1
2
2
VP, Ch 1
Vide Klemm, History of Psychology

Page #180

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
161
contact between itself and objects like pleasure, pain, etc. The medium must be something else which should be called sense and not the mind. In truth, however, no interpal or 'inner sense' 18 necessary for the perception of pleasure, pain and other psychical processes These are held by the Naiyāyıkas to be attributes of the self. As such, they are parts of the conscious life of the self and are, by their very nature, conscious or perceived facts The Vedānta is right in holding that the mind (antahkarana) perceives itself and its functions without the help of any internal sense. It agrees with modern psychology in holding that mind is just the totalrty of conscious states and processes. It is involved in some difficulty by making conscious phenomena qualities of a material substratum. How can the antahkarana, which is inert and material in itself, become a conscious and an intelligent mind? ' By the self's relation to or reflection in it,' says the Advaita Vedāntist The self (ātman), which is neither mind nor matter, is the ground of both mental and material phenomena The Advaita Vedāntist would thus agree with the new realists who hold that mind and matter are not two opposed substances but different arrangements of the same neutral stuff. Or, as Russell has said “Matter is not so material and mind not so mental as is generally supposed' ? If so, mind and matter need not be two contradictory terms or irreconcılable opposites, but may become related to each other. Hence mental functions may belong to an apparently material substratum like the antahkarana.
4. The self and its function in perception By the self (ātmā) we are to understand the individual soul (jīvātmā) in connection with perception. The self, in
1 Analy818 of Mind, p 88.
21-(1117B)

Page #181

162
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
this sense, has been conceived in different ways by different schools of philosophy. We find four main views of the self in Indun philosophy. According to the Cārvākas, the self is either the body with the attribute of intelligence or the aggregate of the senses of sight, hearing, etc. This is the materialistic conception of the self. The Buddhists reduce the self to the mind as a stream of thought or a series of cognitions. Like the empiricists and the sensationalists, they admit only the empirical self or the me.' Among the Vedāntists, some, the Advaitavādıns, take the self as an unchanging selfshining intelligence (svaprakāśa caitanya) which is neither subject nor object, neither the ' I' nor the 'me' Other Vedāntists, the Viśıştādvaitavādıns, however, hold that the self is not pure intelligence as such, but an intelligent subject called the ego or the 'I' (jñātāhamartha evātmā).'
The Nyāya-Vaiseşikas adopt the realistic view of the self. According to them, the self is a unique substance, to which all cognitions, feelings and conations belong as its qualities or attributes. Desire, aversion and volition, pleasure, pain and cognition are all qualities of the self. These qualities cannot belong to the physical substances, since they are mental. Hence we must admit that they are the peculiar properties of some substance other than the physical substances. The self is different in different bodies, because their experiences do not overlap but are kept, distinct The self is indestructible and eternal (nitya). It is ubiquitous or infinite (vibhu), since it is not limited in its activities by time and space. The body or the external senses cannot be called self because intelligence or consciousness cannot be their attribute. The body, by itself, is uncouscious and
1 Vida Sribhåsya, 1 1.1. & NS , 1.1.10, P8, pp. 80 1. 3 BP , 61

Page #182

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
163
unintelligent. The senses cannot explain all mental functions. Imagination, memory, ideation, and the like are independent of the senses of sight, hearing, etc. The mind too cannot take the place of the self If the mind be, as the Nyāya-Vaiseșikas hold, an atomic substance, then the qualities of pleasure, pain, etc , in it must be as imperceptible as the mind itself If, on the other hand, the mind be a series of cognitions, each manifesting itself, then memory becomes inexplicable No member of a mere series of cognitions can know what has preceded it or what will succeed it (vāsanāyāh samkramāsambhavāt). “A succession of ideas is not an idea of succession. The Advaita Vedāntin's idea of the self as eternal self-shining intelligence is no more acceptable to the Naiyāyıkas than that of the Buddhists. There is no such thing as pure intelligence unrelated to some subject and object Intelligence cannot subsist without a certain locus. Hence the self is not intelligence ils such, but a substantial principle owning intelligence as its attribute. The self is not mere knowledge, but a knower, an ego or the 'I' (anamkārāśraya).' Still knowledge or intelligence is not an essential and inseparable attribute of the soul. The soul is, in itself, neither material nor mental, but a neutral substance which comes to have the attribute of intelligence or consciousness in its relation tu the body ?
According to the Nyāya, the self is the fundamental ground of all mental functions. It is involved in all cognitions, affections and volitions. All the experiences of au individual, whether cognitive or otherwise, must inhere in the selt and cannot be separated from it. What are known as innate faculties of the mind, the reflexes, instincts and inborn feelings of fear, batred, etc., are all conditioned
1 BP and SM , 48-50. 2 NV ,11 22, NM., p 432.

Page #183

164
NYÀYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
by the past experiences of a self in this or a previous life. Even the body and the senses cannot function unless they are connected with the self. Hence the self is called the guiding principle of the body and the senses (indriyādyadhisthātā). In the case of external perception the self comes in contact with the object through the medium of the mind and the external senses. When we have the perception of an external object, the self is in contact with the mind, the mind with the external sense concerned, and the external sense with the object of perception. In the case of internal perception the mediation of external sense is unnecessary. Here the object is in contact only with the internal sense, called manas. We shall consider internal perception later on.
Like the older school of Western realism, the NyāyaVaiseșika system accepts the substantialist theory of the self. But their view of the self differs from that of the realists in two important respects. For the realists consciousness or intelligence is an essential and inseparable attribute of the soul. The soul cannot exist without the attribute of consciousness. For the Nyāya-Vaišeşikas, bowever, the soul is in itself an unconscious substance. Consciousness is an accidental property of the soul, due only to its temporary connection with the body. Then, while the realists conceive the individual soul at least to be a limited substance, the Nyāya-Vaišeşikas take all souls ag unlimited and all-pervading substances (vibhu). But the Nyāya view of the self is untenable. If the soul be a substance we do not understand how it can exist without its distinctive attribute of consciousness and still be called the self. Without consciousness the soul is indistinguishable from matter. Again, to say that the soul is in itself pure
INS , 31.19 fi · BP., 47. 8 TB., p. 5.

Page #184

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
substance is to say that it is a substance without attributes, which, however, 18 a contradiction. . Further, if the soul be an independent entity of the realistic type we cannot explain its relation to consciousness or mind or body. The soul-substance is not in its own essence related to anything else. Hence it can only be externally related to other things through the medium of a third thing. In perception it is said to be related to the object through the medium of the senses. But how are we to explain its relation to the mind or other senses? That must be by some other medium. Again, that medium must require another and so on indefinitely. So we are to give up the idea of the self as a neutral substance externally related to consciousness. In truth, the self is a self-conscious reality. We may call it a substance in the sense of an existing' continuant, but that continuant is psychical and not physical. It is not a metaphysical surface on which consciousness is accidentally reflected. Rather consciousness or intelligence is the intrinsic character of its existence, the core of its being. It is not indeed the passing thought, which James proposes to call the self. The Naiyāyıka is right in insisting that fleeting ideas or cognitions cannot take the place of the permanent self. So also an unconscious substance cannot be the conscious self. We should say that the self is the intelligent reality or being which is the ground of all thougbt and experience. It is the eternal self-manifesting real which witnesses, but is not involved in, the flow of events.

Page #185

CHAPTER VIII
ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS 1. Different kinds of perception and the categories of
reality (padārtha)
Taking perception as a general name for all true cognitions produced by sense-object contact the Naiyāyikas distinguish between different kinds of it. First we have the distinction between laukika or ordinary and alaukika or extraordinary perceptions. This distinction depends on the way in which the senses come in contact with their objects. We bave laukika or ordinary perception when there is the usual sense-contact with objects present to sense. In alaukrka perception, lowever, the object is such as is not ordinarily present to sense but is conveyed to sense through an unusual medium. Ordinary perception, again, is of two kinds, namely, external (bāhya) and internal (mānasa). The former is due to the external senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell. The latter is brought about by the mind's contact with certain objects. Thus we bave sıx kinds of ordinary perception, namely, the visual, auditory, tactual, gustatory, olfactory and the internal.' In this chapter we propose to consider the objects of external and internal perceptions. The special cases of perception, called alaukika, will be discussed in a later chapter.
According to the Nyāya-Vaisesikas, there are two main types of reality, namely, being and non-being (bhāvo’bhāvasca). Being as a category (padārthu) stands for all that
1 SM., 52, 63.

Page #186

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
167
is, or for all positive realities. Similarly, non-being stands for whatever is not, i.e for all negative realities. That a thing is not, or does not exist is as much a real fact as that it is, or does exist. Hence abhāva or non-existence is as good a category of reality as bhāva or being. There are six kinds of being or positive reality These are substance (dravya), quality (guņa), action (karma), the universal (sāmānya), particularity (višeşa), and the relation of inherence (samavāya). Of these, the first three are existents. These participate in existence (sattā). On the other hand, the universal, particularity and the relation of inherence are positive realities but not existent facts. These do not participate in existence (sattā). They possess being but not existence. Hence there are two types of being or positive reality, viz the existent and the subsistent. Of the six kinds of positive reality recognised by the NyāyaVaiseșikas, the first three are existents and the last three subsistents. Thus we have altogether seven categories of reality, namely, substance, quality, action, the universal, particularity, the relation of inherence and non-existence. All objects of the world or all realities have been brought under these seven categories by the Naya-Vaišeşikas. Their scheine of the classification of realities may be compared to that of the modern realists. Among modern realists Russell, Alexander 8 and others recognise the reality of negation or non-existence. According to them, negative or non-existent facts are as real and objective as positive facts. It is also held by them that among positive facts some bave existence in a particular time and space, while others have subsistence only is so far as these are free from limitation to one particular space and time. According to them, universals and relatio is die such subsistent realities.
1 HP and SM , 2, 14 2 The Analysis of Mind, pp 275 76 1 Space, Time and Derty, pp 200 22,

Page #187

168
NYAYA THTORY OF KNOWLEDGE
But for the Naiyāyikas, particularity also is a subsistent fact and the relation of conjunction (samyoga) has existence as an attribute of the substances related by it.
All realities, we have said, are brought under the seven categories. But all of them cannot ordinarily be objects of perception. Hence with regard to the different objects included under each of the categories we have to distinguishi between those that are perceived and those that are imperceptible.
2. Perception of substances or things (dravya)
A substance is defined as the constitutive cause of things or as the substratum of qualities. There are nine kinds of substances. These are : earth, water, light, air, ākāśa, time, space, soul and mind. Of these, the first four stand for both the atoms of earth, water, light and air, and the compounds formed by these atoms. The atoms of earth, etc., cannot be perceived. A compound of two atoms, called dvyanuka or the dyad, is also imperceptible, because, like an atom, it has no dimension and manifest quality (mahattva and udbhūtatva) Mind (manas) as another atomic substance is not an object of ordinary sense perception So also ākāśa, time and space are, according to the NvāyaVaišeşikas, imperceptible substances.: A kāśa is an allpervading medium which is inferred from the phenomena of sound. Space and time are conceived as two receptacles of unlimited dimension holding all things and events witbin them. These two are the most fundamental conditions for the existence of finite objects and are therefore called the origin of all that is originated (janyānāṁ janakah). Each
1 Samaväyıkáranain rava'), saņābray.) v&, TB, P 20, 3 BP , 3 3 TB, and TM Ch. 1.

Page #188

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
of these is said to be one, eternal and infinite. As infinite wholes these cannot be perceived, since the conditions of perception, viz. limited dimension and manifest quality, are absent in them.
It follows from the above that the perceptible substances are earth, water, light, air and the soul. Of these, the soul is the object of internal perception which we shall consider afterwards With regard to air as a substance, there is some difference of opinion among the Naiyāyikas. According to the older Naiyayikas, there are two conditions of the external perception of a substance, namely, that it must have a limited dimension and manifest colour (mahattve sati udbhutarupavattvam) 2 On this view, air becomes imperceptible, since it has no manifest colour in it. Its existence is therefore to be known by inference from the quality of touch which subsists in the air. According to the modern Naiyayikas, however, colour is not a condition of all external perception of substances. It is only in the visual perception of substance that manifest colour is an essential condition. The sense of touch also perceives substances in which the quality of touch is manifest (udbhūtasparsa) Hence we may have a perception of air as a substance possessing the quality of manifest touch
Admitting that we have a perception of the substances of earth, water, light and air, it should be noted that what we perceive is neither an atom (paramānu) of earth, etc, nor a compound of any two atoms only (dvyanuka). To be perceived, a substance must have a limited dimension. It must be neither infinite like space, etc., nor infinitesimal like an atom or the compound of two atoms. Hence the perceptible substances are finite things from the triad
22--(1117B)
169
1
2 1M, Ch 1.
3
SM,
56.
BP and SM, 44-46

Page #189

170
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
(trasareņu) upwards. A triad (tryaņuka) is a compound of three dyads or three compounds of two atoms each. It is the minimum perceptible substance in Indian philosophy. As a matter of fact, therefore, the substances that are perceived by the extewal senses are complex finite things like the jar, table, tree, etc.
In the external perception of substances or finite things the senses come in direct contact with the things. This sense-object contact is called saryoga or conjunction of the five external senses, it is the sense of sight and touch that can give us a perception of things. The eve perceives things that have manifest colour, 2 e are visible The sense of touch perceives things that possess manifest touch or are tangible. In both cases the perceived thing is conjoined to the sense. They are not always or inseparably related but are two substarces that come in actual contact with each other at the moment of perception (ayutasıddhya: bhāvāt). The other senses of taste, smell and bearing cannot give us perceptions of things. These can perceive the qualities of taste, etc., but not the substances or things, in wbich the qualities in here Hence we have only visual and tactual perceptions of physical things To perceive a thing is to perceive it as having a limited dimension in space. The organs of sight and touch, being extended, can perceive things as having a limited extension The other senses cannot perceive extension and are therefore incapable of perceiving things as extended in space
The things that are perceived by the external senses possess a limited dimension (mahattva). This means that
1 Gandbábrayagrabaņe ta ghrāṇasyāsāmartbyam, etc SM , 53, ghrāņaragang. śrotrani dravyågrābakāņi, cakşustvanmanāmsi dravyagrābakānı, TK p 9 H H Price also thinks that our beliefs concerning material things are based upon visual and tactual experiences, and that other modes of senge-experience, eg hearing and smelling cannot by themselves give us any knowledge of the material world. See his Perception, p. 2

Page #190

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS 171 they are made up of parts (avayava). The magnitude of a thing depends on the aggregation of a number of parts composing it. Hence it seems that to perceive a thing we must perceive all its component parts at one and the same time. But a simultaneous perception of all the parts of a thing is not possible. In the visual perception of a tree, for example, the eye comes in contact with only a part of its front side. There is no contact of the eye with the other sides of the tree or other parts that fall outside the visual field. How then can we have a perception of the tree when only a part of it is actually perceived ?
This question has troubled psychologists for a long time The answer given by the associationists is generally accepted by other schools of psychology, such as structuralism, funetionalism and self-psychology. According to the associationist psychology of Hume, Mill and others, a thing is an aggregate of its parts We perceive the different parts one after the other and, it may be, on different occasions. It is because the different parts are always found to go together that their corresponding ideas become associated in our minds Hence the perception of one part recalls the ideas of the other parts, and all of them associated together give us the perception of the tree. According to other psychologists, the perception of the tree is no doubt due to the combination of the presented part with ideas or representations of the other parts But this combination is effected, not by the association of ideas, hut by the synthetic activity of the mind or the self. Among Indian thinkers the Buddhists adopt the associationist explanation of the perception of things as wholes made up of parts.
Here the Naiyāyıkas point out that the associationist explanation fails to account for the perception of a thing. According to it, the perception of a thing consists in having ideas or images of other parts when one part of it is

Page #191

172
NYÁYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
actually perceived. But these other parts are as far from being the thing as the perceived part itself. Further, to think of the other parts as connected with the perceived part is not to perceive them, but to infer the unperceived from the perceived. Hence what we call the perception of a thing 18 really an inference or remembrance of it. It cannot be said that to perceive a thing the mind is to synthesise the presentation of a part with the representation of other parts. In that case we have a mental construction and no perception of the thing. So the Naiyāyikas maintain that we have a direct perception of the thing as a whole along with the perception of any part of it According to them, a thing is not a mere aggregate of parts (avayavasamūha), but a whole which is distinct from any or all of the parts constituting it (dravyāntara). It subsists in the parts not by fractions, but wholly and indivisibly. To perceive any part of a thing as part is also to perceive the whole to which it belongs. When we perceive a book we apprehend it directly as a whole of parts. We have not to construct it from successive perceptions of different parts or from perception of some and ideal representation of others. If we have not a direct perception of the thing as a whole, we cannot perceive it at all. If we are to construct the thing from senseimpressions of its parts, perception would become inferential knowledge.
Some modern psychologists confirm the Nyāya view of the direct perception of a thing as a whole. H. H. Price ? rejects the associationist and the rationalist explanation on this point and holds that in perception' what we accept is not simply a surface (though this is the most that can be present to our senses) but a complete material thing
1 NB, 21 28-34 2 Perception, pp 163-64

Page #192

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
173
as a whole. When we sense the sense-datum the house just presents itself to us as a whole, without any reasoning or passage of the mind.' Similarly, the Gestalt psychogists show that the perception of a thing, say an orange, is not a colour experience soinehow combined with the experiences of a certain shape, taste, touch and smell. On the other hand, it is a whole of experience which gives us knowledge of the thing as a whole, 1 e. as a round fruit, soft to touch and with sweet acid taste. We try to account for this whole of experience by saying that it is a compound of certain simpler ideas like those of colour, taste, smell, etc. But here ne fail to notice that the experiencewhole is what we have to siart with and the simpler ideas are discovered by subsequent analysis. Hence we are to say that there is first the perception of a thing as a whole and that its parts are next perceived by focussing attention on this or that aspect of it.
But while the Naiyāyıkas are right in holding that we have the direct perception of a thing as a whole,, they seem to limit arbitrarıly the range of such perception to the tactual and the visual field. They deny the capacity of perceiving things to the senses of taste, smell and hearing. But it is dogmatic to say that tasting or smelling or bearing a thing is not perceiving it. It is true that taste, smell and sound are the qualities of substances or things. But so also are colour and touch. Hence if the senses of sight and touch can perceive things when they sense their colour and touch, there is no reason why the other senses should fail to perceive things when they perceive their other qualities. This is all the more necessary for the Naiyāyıkas who hold that to perceive a quality the sense must first come in contact with the substance, of which it is the quality. For the perception of a quality, the sense must be related, through
1 Psychologies of 1925, Kohler, Gestalt Psychology

Page #193

174
NYÅIA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
the substance, with the quality (samyukta-samavāya). But if there is contact of sense with the substance there must be a perception of it. Even if it be said that perception is not determined by sense-object contact but by the character of immediacy, we have to admit that the senses of taste, smell and hearing give us a perception of things. An appeal to direct experience shows that the gustatory, olfactory and auditory cognitions of things are as immediate as their visual and tactual perceptions. ·
3. Perception of attributes (guna) and actions (karma)
An attribute (guna) is defined as that which exists in a substance and has no quality or activity in it! A substance exists by itself and is the constituent (samavāyr) cause of things. An attribute depends for its existence on some substance and is never constitutive of things. It is a nonconstituent (asamavūyr) cause of things in so far as it determines their nature and character All attributes must be owned by substances. So there cannot be an attribute of attributes An attribute is itself attributeles. (nirguna). An attribute is a static property of things It hangs on the thing as something passive and inactive (niskriya). So it is different from both substance and action. There are altogether twenty-four kinds of attributes. These are : colour (rūpa), taste (rasa), smell (gandha), touch (sparsa), sound (sabda), number (samkhyā), in ignitude (parimāna), differentia (přthaktva), conjunction (simyoga), disjunction (vibhāga), remoteness (paratva), nearness (aparatva), fluidity (dravatva), viscidity ( nehı), knowledge (buddhi), pleasure (sukha), pain (duḥkha), desire (icchā), aversion (dveșa), effort (prayatna), heaviness (gurutva), merit (dharma), demerit (adharma) and faculty (sarskāra).
1 Dravyābritā jñeya Dirguņā diskriga gupāh, BP, 86 2 BP., 8-5

Page #194

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
175
All attributes do not admit of sense perception. Hence we are to exclude the imperceptible attributes from the objects of perception Faculty (samskāra) is of three different kinds velocity (vega), which keeps a thing in motion; mental disposition (bhāvanā), which enables us to remember and recoguise things; and elasticity (sthitisthāpaka), by which a thing tends towards equilibrium when disturbed. Of these, mental disposition and elasticity are regarded as imperceptible attributes. So also merit (dharme..and demerit (adharmo) are considered to be supersensible attributes of the soul' With regard to effort (prayatna) some Naiyāyıkas inake 1 distinction betiveen three different kinds of it, namely, vitil effort (jīvanayoni), which maintains the flow of life (prānasamcārahetu), and positive and negative volitions (pravrtti and nurttı) According to them, vital effort (rīvanayoni prayatna) is an attribute which is not perceived, but inferred as the cause of vital functions. Modern Naiyāyikas, however, do not recognise the attribute of vital effort ? Ilmost all the Indian systeins agree in holding that heaviness or weight (gurutva) is a quality which cannot be perceived, but must be inferied' The reason why these qualities are treated as imperceptible is that they cannot be perceived by any of the senses iecognised in Indian philosophy. They are supersensible entities and hence there cannot be any kind of contact between these and our senses. In the Jaina system, however, light and heavy are treated as touch-sensations
The remaining attributes are regarded as capable of being perceived by the senses But those belonging to the soul_such as knowledge, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion and volition, are the objects of internal perception_nhub ne
di
1 BP, 93-94 1 SM & Dinakari, 149 52 3. BP., 153. 4 Cf. Pancastıkāyasära, Ch. 11.

Page #195

176
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
shall afterwards consider. These apart, the attributes that are left are the objects of external perception. Some of them are perceived only by one sense, and some by two senses. Thus colour (rūpa) is perceived only by the eye. Taste (rasa) is a quality of substances that is perceived only by the gustatory sense (rasana). Smell (gandha) can be perceived only by the olfactory sense (ghrāņa), and touch only by the cutaneous sense (tvak). The perception of these four attributes has two conditions, namely, that they must be manifest (udbhūta) and that they must belong to substances possessing a limited dimension (mahadvrttıtva). ' In the perception of these attributes the second form of sense-object contact (viz samyukta-samavāya) obtains. Tbe attributes come in contact with their respective senses through their inherence (samavāya) in the things that are conjoined (samyukta) to the senses. Conjunction or direct contact is possible only between two substances. Hence there cannot be any direct contact of the attributes with their special senses. But the attributes of colour, etc, inbere in certain things or substances, such as a jar, an orange, a table, etc. When these things come in actual contact (2.e. are conjoined) with the eye, etc., there is a perception of the qualities of colour, taste, smell and touch as inhering (samaveta) in them.
Sound is an attribute of ākāśa, and is perceived only by the auditory sense (śrotra). In the perception of sound the fourth kind of sense-object contact (viz. samavāya) holds good. Sound is perceived when it comes in contact with the auditory sense. This contact cannot be a relation of conjunction (samyoga), since one of the terms is an attribute The sense of hearing is a portion of ākāśa, in which sound inheres as an attribute. Hence the contact of sound with the auditory organ means its inherence (samavāya) in the
1 BP, 53-56, 92-93.

Page #196

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
177
latter.' Sound is first produced by the conjunction or disjunction of things. But this sound cannot be perceived unless it reaches the passage of the ear. So the first sound produces other sounds which either undulate towards the ear or move in straight lines in all directions (vīcitaranganyāyena kadarnbamukulanyāyena vā) In this way the series of sounds meets the ear. The last number of the series which strikes upon the ear-drum is perceived, while the first and the intermediate ones are not perceived. So it is not correct to say that we perceive sound at a distance. The Vedāntist, however, thinks that in the perception of sound it is the ear that meets sound and not vice versa. We are not wrong when we say that we hear the sound of the distant drum. For there is nothing to contradict the obvious experience of distant sounds.8
The attributes that admit of perception by both the senses of sight and touch are number, magnitude, differentia, conjunction, disjunction, remoteness, nearness, fluidity, viscidity and velocity. These are perceived by the eye when connected with light and manifest colour, and by the tactual sense when connected with manifest touch. Of visible and tangible things there may be respectively a visual and tactual perception of their number, etc. In the perception of these qualities we have the second kind of senseobject contact, viz samyukta-samavāya. The objects (i.e. number and the rest) come in contact with the senses through their inherence (samavāya) in certain things that are conjoined (samjukta) to the senses.
In the perception of magnitude_(parimāņa), we are to admit a further fourfold contact between sense and the
At the
Whe
1 BP , 53 60
BP , & SM , 165 66 3 VP , Cbap 1, 4 BP & SM , 93
5 Ibid, 54-56 23—(1117B)

Page #197

178
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
things concerned. By magnitude is bere meant a limited dimension that belongs to ordinary things like tables and jars, and neither the unlimited dimension of the all-pervading substances, nor the minute dimension of atoms and dyads, for these are imperceptible. The magnitude of ordınary sensible things is due to the number and inagnitude of their component parts. Hence to perceive the magnitude of a thing we are to perceive the co-existence and relative position of the constituent parts. This is rendered possible by four kinds of contact (catușțayasannikarşa): that between the different parts of an extended sense-organ and the different parts of the thing, that between the different parts of the sense-organ and the whole of the thing, that between parts of the thing and the whole of the sense-organ and that between the wbole of the sense-organ and the whole of the thing. It is by virtue of such contacts between sense and things that we can perceive their magnitude from a distance The Naiyāyika has to take the help of so many kinds of sense-object contact because he believes in the direct visual perception of the magnitude of distant things. The muscular sensation of movement is not admitted by him as a factor in the perception of magnitude or limited extension.
Differentia (přthaktva) is a positive character of things. That one thing is different from another, e. g. a cow and a horse, does not simply mean that the one is not the other. Difference does not consist in the mutual negation (anyonyābhāva) of two things. One thing is different from other things, not simply because it excludes or negates them, but because it has a distinctive character of its own whereby it is differentiated from them. This distinctive character constitutes its differentia from other things. Differentia is thus an objective character or attribute of things and is perceived in
1 TB., p. 6.

Page #198

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS 179 things that are perceptible. The Vedānta, however, takes difference to be a case of mutual non-existence and holds that it is known not by perception, but by non-perception (anupalabdhı). Modern Naiyāyıkas also do not treat difference as a separate quality, but reduce it to mutual nonexistence,
Conjunction (samyoga) is a relation (sarbandha) that is perceived as an attribute of the things related by it. Disjunction or separation (vibhāga) is not a relation (sarbandha). Rather, it is the negation of the relation of conjunction between two things It is also perceived as an attribute of the things which are disjoined. Space and time as infinite wholes are imperceptible substances. But the remoteness or nearness of things in time and space is a perceptible quality of the things. Things are far or near in space according as they are separated from our body by a larger or smaller number of contacts with space-points. Similarly; things are near or remote in time according as they have a smaller or larger number of contacts with timeinstants. Such position in time and space becomes an attribute of things and is perceived by the senses of sight and touch. Fluidity, viscidity and velocity are the qualities of certain things and are perceived by the senses of sight and touch like other perceptible qualities. Here, again, the modern Naiyāyıkas do not recognise remoteness and nearness as separate qualities, since these are due to varied contacts of an object with points of time and space.
Action (harma) is physical movement. Like an attribute, it inberes only in substance. It is different
1 SM , 114 * VP , Cb VỊ. 3 Dinakari, 114. 4 BP., 54-56, 121-24 6 Dinakars, 124. 6 Calapātmakam karma, guņs iva dravyamātravrttı, TB, p. 28

Page #199

180
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
from both substance and attribute. Substance is the support of both action and attribute. An attribute is à static character of things, but actions are dynamic While an attribute is a passive property that does not take us beyond the thing it belongs to, an action is a transitive process by which one tbing reaches another. So it is regarded as the independent cause of the conjunction and disjunction of things An action has no attribute because the latter belongs only to substance. All actions or movements must subsist in limited corporeal substances (mūrtadravyavrttı). Hence there can be no action or motion in the all-pervadıng substances. There are five kinds of action such as throwing upward, throwing downward, contraction, expansion and locomotion (utkşepanāpaksepanākuīcanaprasāranagamana) These actions belong to such substances as earth, water, air, light or fire and the mind. Those inhering in the mind are imperceptible, since the mind is so. The action or motion of the perceptible substances can be perceived by the senses of sight and touch In the perception of movement the second kind of sense-object contact, viz. samyukta-samavāya, is operative. The senses come in contact with movement through their conjunction with the things in which it inheres
4.
The universal (sāmānya) particularity (visesa) and
the relation of inherence (samavāya)
There are three views of the universal or the classessence in Indian philosophy. In the Bauddha philosophy we have the nominalistic view. According to it, the indıvidual alone is real and there is no class-essence or universal other than the particular objects of experience. The idea of sameness that we may have with regard to a number of indı
1 BP., 54-56.

Page #200

181
viduals of a certain class is due to their being called by the same name. It is only the name that is general, and the name does not stand for any positive essence that is present in all the individuals. It means only that the individuals called by one name are different from those to which a different name is given. Thus certain animals are called cow, not because they possess any common essence, but because they are different from all animals that are not cows. So there is no universal but the name with a negative connotation.1
ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
The Jainas and the Advaita Vedantins 2 adopt the conceptualistic view of the universal. According to them, the universal does not stand for any independent entity over and above the individuals On the other hand, it is constituted by the essential common attributes of the individuals. Hence the universal is not separate from the individuals, but is identical with them in point of existence The two are related by way of identity. The universal has existence, not in our minds only, but in the particular objects of experience It does not however come to them from outside, but is just their common nature. On this view, individuals have," as Mill says, no essences. The Nyaya-Vaiseṣikas accept the realistic view of the universal. According to them, universals are eternal entities which are distinct from, but in here in many individuals (nityatve satyanekasamavetatvam). The universal is the basis of the notion of sameness that we have with regard to all the individuals of a certain class. It is because there is one single essence present in different individuals that they are brought under a class and thought of as essentially the
"s
66
198
1 Vide TB, p 28, Six Buddhist Nyaya Tracts, Pt 5, on Samanya-düṣaṇa-dıkprasărita.
VP, Ch I, Outlines of Jainism, p 115
3 J 8. Mill, System of Logic, p 78 4 SM., 8.

Page #201

182
same.1 Like Plato's " ideas," or essences of the mediaeval realists, sāmānya or the universal is a real entity which corresponds to a general term or class-concept in our mind. Some of the modern realists also hold that a 'universal is an eternal timeless entity which may be shared by many particulars.' The Naiyayı kas agree further with the modern realists in holding that universals do not come under existence (satta). These do not exist in time and space, but have being and subsist in substance, attribute and action There is no universal subsisting in another universal (sāmānyānadhikaranatvam), nor Is there any universal for particularity (viseṣa), inherence (samavāyu) and non-existence (abhāva).2 Modern realists, however, do not admit with the Naiyayikas that all universals pertaining to sensible objects are capable of being perceived by the senses. According to the former, we can perceive only such universals as may be called "sensible qualities," as for example, colour, whiteness, hardness, etc.
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
""
1 TB, p 28, P8, p 164
2 BP. & SM., 14, 15
According to the Naiyayikas, the universals that subsist in supersensible objects are imperceptible (atindrıyavrttīni atīndriyāņi). The universals that inhere in perceptible objects (pratyakṣavrttīni) are perceived by the senses which perceive their locus. The universals of substances or things (dravya) are perceived by the senses of sight and touch provided they are visible and tangible things respectively. Thus jarness (ghaṭatva), treeness (vṛkṣatva) and manhood are universals that inhere respectively in all individual jars, trees and men. When perceiving any of these individuals, we directly cognise also the universal inhering in it Here the second form of sense-contact, viz. samyukta-samavāya, functions. The universal" jarness comes in contact with
99
3 Vide, Russell, Problems of Philosophy, Chs IX, X 4 TK., p 9.
4

Page #202

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
183
the visual or the tactual sense tbrough its inherence (samavāya) in the jar that is seen or touched and is thus conjoined (sarnyukta) to the sense concerned.
The perception of universals pertaining to attributes (guņa) and actions (karma) generally takes place through the third kind of sense-contact, viz. samyukta samavetasanavāya. When perceiving such qualities as a red colour, a fragrant smell, a sweet taste and a hard touch, we also know directly, i.e. perceive the universals of colour, swell, taste and touch as such. Similarly, when we per. ceive a particular kind of movement we know directly what motion in general is To perceive anything as thrown upward or downward, is also to perceive the universal of upward or downward impulsion (utkṣepanatrādi). Smellness (gandhatva) as a universal pertaining to different kinds of smell is perceived by the olfactory sense. Taste (rasatva) as the genus of different kinds of taste is perceived by the gustatory sense. Similarly, the universals of colour (rūpalva) and touch (sparśatva) are perceived by the senses of sight and touch respectively. The universals pertaining to other sensible attributes and actions or movements are perceived by both the senses of sight and touch. These universals are perceived when they come in contact with the senses through their inherence in attributes or actions which inhere in certain things that are conjoined with the senses. When, for example, I see a white paper, I perceive the universal 'whiteness' as intimately related to the particular kind of white colour in the paper which is in conjunction with my eyes Soundness (sabdatva) as the genus of different kinds of sound is perceived by the auditory sense through the fifth kind of sense-contact, viz. samavetasamavāya. The universal 'soundness' is in contact with
1
TB., p. 6; BP., 54-56, 69-60. BP., 58-66.

Page #203

184
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
the ear through its inherence (samavāya) in sound which inheres as a quality (samaveta) in the auditory sense.' The universals of actions or motions belonging to perceptible things are perceived by the senses of sight and touch through the third kind of sense-contact, viz. samyuktasamaveta-samavāya. The universal ' motion' is in contact with the visual or cutaneous sense in so far as it subsists in a particular kind of movement inhering (samavcta) in something that is seen or touched (1 e. is conjoined with the visual or tactual sense).2
According to the Vedānta, the universal, as constituted by the common attributes of the individuals, is perceived along with the perception of the individuals. The perception of the different kinds of universals is mediated by different kinds of sense-contact The universal of substances is perceived by samyuktatādātmya, that of attributes or actions by samyuktābhinnatādātmya, and that of sound by tādātmyavadabhinna forms of sense-object contact. These three forms correspond respectively to the second, third and fifth forms of sense-contact admitted by the Naiyāyıkas. But where the latter speak of the relation of inherence (samavāya), the Vedāntist puts in the relation of identity, since inherence is not admitted by him as a distinct category and the relation between substance and attribute, or universal and particular is said to be one of identity (tādātmya), so that they require no tertium quid like inherence to relate the one to the other. 8
Particularity (višeșa) is the extreme opposite of the universal (sāmānya). It is the ultimate ground of the differences of things from one another. Things are ordinarily distinguished from one another by means of their component parts or aspects. But the differences of parts
1 BP, 53, 61 7 BP., 54-56. 3 VP., Ch. I

Page #204

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
185
or aspects rest on those of other smaller parts or finer aspects. In this way we are led to the ultimate differences of the simple substances, beyond which we cannot go. The ultimate differences are due to certain unique characters which distinguish one thing from all other things of the world. Particularity is such unique character of the simple and eternal substances. It is completely different from universals or the things coming under any universal. Hence by particularity we are to understand the unique individuality of spice, time, ākāśa, minds, souls, and the atoms of earth,. water, light and air. Particularity is thus eternal and subsists in the eternal substances (nityanityadravyavṛttih)2 There are innumerable particularities, since the individuals in which they subsist are innumerable. Other things are distinguished by their particularities, but the latter are distinguished by themselves (svata vyāvrttāḥ). Hence particularities are so many ultimates (antyah) in the analysis and explanation of things. There cannot be any perception of them, since they are supersensible entities (atīndriyāḥ). Some modern Naiyāyikas, however, do not admit that particularity is a distinct category. If the particularities can be distinguished by themselves, without having any distinguishing character in them, the eternal substances also may be distinguished by themselves without requiring any character like particularity (viseṣa).
eva
8
There are two main relations recognised in the NyāyaVaiseşi ka philosophy These are the relations of conjunction (samyoga), and inherence (samavāya). A relation is here conceived as a positive connection between two facts.
5
1 BP & SM, 10
2 TB, p 28, PS, p 168
3 T, pp 11, 88
4 Dinakari, 10
5 TB, p 2.
24-(1117B)
"

Page #205

186
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Hence it is that the commonly recognised negative relations of disjunction, spatial and temporal separation, etc., are treated as qualities and not relations. Conjunction (saryoga) is a transient relation between two things which may and normally do exist in separation from each other. Two balls moving from opposite directions meet at a certain point of space The relation which holds between them when they meet is one of conjunction. It 18 a temporary contact between two things which may again be separated (yutasiddha) So long as it is, it exists as a quality of the terms related, but it does not affect the existence of those terms. It makes no difference to the existence of the balls whether they are conjoined to each other or not. Thus conjunction is an external relation which exists as an accidental quality of the terms related by it.
Simivāyı is an eternal and natural (ayutasiddha) relation between two facts, of which one inheres in the other.' It is a necessary relation in so far as the related terms or at least one of them cannot exist without being related to the other. Like conjunction, it is distinct from the terms related by it. But while conjunction exists as an adventi. tious quality of the related terms, samavāya does not exis as a quality but always subsists between the things related The relation of samavāya holds between such entities as whole and part, attribute or action and substance, the uni versal and the individual, particularity and the simple eternal subs anc's. Of these purs, the first cannot exist without being related to the other. The whole is alway: related to its parts, attribute or action is inseparably related to some substance, the universal must always subsiss in the individual, and so particularity (viseșa) in the simple
1 Ayutasiddhayoh Bombondhah samaväyah etc., TB, p ?, samavāyatvar nity sambandhatram etc , 8M , 11,
9 Sousambandhibhinno nityaḥ sambandhah samaväyah, TM , Ch. I

Page #206

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
187
substances. But the part. can exist without being actually related to the whole. A substance muy have being without relation to its attributes or actions. So we see that samavāya is a necessary relation for one of the relata ang not for both. It cannot be called an internal relation since the related entities are not affected by it. It stand: as a natural link between two facts, each of which hus a distinct existence of its own. A substance and its attribute are not made to be such by their relation to each other. Hence, like conjunction, samavāya is an external relation. But, unlike conjunction, it is not produced, nor does it exist as a quality in time and space. It always subsists between two facts, which are naturally related to each other some modern realists treat relations as universals that do not exist but subsist. For the Naiyāyika, however, the relation of conjunction is an attribute and has existence in time and space. The relation of inherence is a subsistent fact but not a universal. It is a category distinct from the universal and the rest. Both conjunction and inherence are objects of perception. The relation of inherence 19 perceived by the senses of sight and touch. In perceiving this relation there is contact between sense and object by way of visesanatā. We directly perceive that the cloth inheres in the threads. But the contact of the relation of inherence with our sense is indirect. It comes in contact with the sense of sight or touch through being adjectival to the threads which are conjoined with either of them. The Vai eşikas, however, hold that samavāya cannot be perceived, but must be known by inference. They agree with the Naiyāyikas in maintain
1 BP and 8M ,11
Dravyam pirguna meva prathamamutpadyate pascat tatsamaveta guņi atpadyante, ete, TB .p 3.
3 Russell, Problems of Philosophy, Ch IX. 4 BP., 54-56, 62

Page #207

188
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
ing that samavāya is one and eternal. We cannot distinguish between different kinds of samavāya. because it is the same in all cases' Some modern Naiyāyıkas, however, contend that samavāya is not of one, but many different kinds, since one thing is found to inhere in other things in different ways ?
Svarūpasambandha " is a third relation admitted by the Naiyāyıkas. It has been introduced to explain such cases of connection between things as are neither conjunction (samyoga) nor inherence Unlike the relations of conjunction and inherence, svarūpasambandha is not distinct from the terms related by it Rather, the relation is itself constituted by one of the relata What is the relation between an object and our knowledge of it? It cannot be inherence, since knowledge, is a quality, inheres not in the object, but in the soul Nor can it be conjunction, because that is possible only between two substances, while knowledge is an attribute and not a substance Nor can we say that we do not require any relation. The two being distinct entities require somehow to be related. Hence it is said that a new relation, culled svarūpasambandha, is to relate the two The object is related to knowledge in so far as it is known The relation of knowledge to the object is thus the object itself as known (arthasvarūpa) The object as known is what we mean by its relation to knowledge, so that the relation is constituted by the object, or is due to the nature of the object itself
The Nyāya doctrine of samavāya has been severely criticised and rejected by the Advaita Vedāntin. Samkara in his commentary on the Brahma-Sūtra shows that the necessity of the category of samavāya arises from the Naiyāyıka's conception of a thing as a collection of distinct
1 PS, pp 172-176 2 Dinakari, 11. 3 SM., 11; Nyāyakosa, p. 1057.

Page #208

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
189
and different entities like substance, attribute, action, the universal and particularity. If these are so many distinct entities, we have to explain how they are united in the thing so as to make it one whole This cannot be explained by the relation of conjunction, since it is a case of the dependence of attribute, action etc., on substance, while conjunction is a relation between independent substances which can exist in isolation So we have to introduce a new relation to explain the intimate connection between a substance and its attributes, actions, etc., and this is samavāya or the relation of inherence. But if attributes, actions, etc., are distinct and different from substance, there is no more reason to suppose that they depend on substance than there is to think that such independent objects as man, horse and cow, depend on one another. If, on the other hand, attribute and the rest depend on substance and cannot exist without it, we should say that they are not different entities but only different aspects of the substance itself The same thing is called by the different names of attribute, action, etc, according to its different organizations (samsthāna), in the same way in which the same man is a father, il son, it brother, etc, under different conditions A substance and its attribute or action, the universal and the individual, the whole and the part are such that we cannot have any experience of the one without the other They are inseparable both in our experience and in point of existence It follows from this that they are not different entities, but aspects of the same thing To say that they are distinct and differı nt entities which require to be related by samavāya, which also is a distinct entity, is to count the fallacy of infinite regress (anavasthā) How is samazāyu itself related to each of the ternis related by it? To explain this we have to bring in new relations which being distinct entities will also require other relations and so on ad infinitum. Hence we are to

Page #209

190
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
say that attributes actions, universals, etc., are not independent entities, but a pects of the same substance, and that we do not require a new relation like samarāya to relate them to substance
The Vedāntin's criticism of the Nyāya view of samavāya seems to miss the essential point. From the standpoint of a common sense realism the Naiyāyıka maintains the distinction between a substance and its attributes or actions, the universal and the individual, the whole and the part. It may be conceded to the Vedāntin that we have no experience of attributes and actions without a substance, of the universal without the individual, of the whole without its parts. It may also be admitted by us that attributes, actions, universals, etc , do not exist except in a substance. But from this we cannot conclude that a substance is identical with its attributes and actions, or that it is an aggregate of the aspects of attribute, action, universal, etc. Two entities may be inseparable and yet not identical, only if tbey are different and distinct in our experience. We cannot, indeed, have any experience of attributes without a substance But the same experience tells us that a substance is distinct from its attributes, and the attributes are distinct from the substance. A substance is not an attribute, nor a group of attributes. There can be no attributes without some substance. Hence the existence of attributes presupposes the distinct reality of a substance. That we ascribe different sense qualities to the same substance also shows that the substance is not identical with any of them, but is distinct from them all. What we mean by a substance is, therefore, different from what we mean by an attribute. The substance stands for the continuant' or the reality underlying the changing characters of a thing, and the attributes stand for its properties or powers of manifesting certain characters under certain conditions. Although an attribute is not a substance, yet it is inseparably

Page #210

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
191
related to or rooted in it. This inseparable relation or the fact of subsistence of the attribute in a substance is samavāya. The same reasuning applies mutatis mutandis to the relation between substance and action, the universal and the individual, the whole and the part, particularity and the particulars In each case we have an inseparable relation between two distinct and different entities. It is a relation like saryoga or conjunction. But, unlike samyoga which is a quality, samavāya is a special relation that cannot be reduced to any other category. It is not a substance because it has no qualities. It is not i quality because it is not limited to substances, nor does it qualify substances. For the same reason it cannot be regarded as an action It is not a universal nor particularity, because it is neither the common essence of many things nor the peculiarity of anything It is the objective fact of an inseparable connection between two other facts which are distinct and different Hence we have to admit a separate category called samavāya or the relation of inherence.
5 Perception of non-existence (abhāva) The above categories of substance and the rest stand for positive realities, whether existent or subsistent. The category of abhā: a stands for all negative or non-existent facts. The e facts are as real and objective as positive facts, only they have no being. While positive facts are, i. e. possess being, negative facts are not, l. e. possess nonbeing. Abhāva or non-existence is defined as that which is not inherence and cannot be in the relation of inherence to anything else (asainavāyatre satyasamavāyaḥ). It 18 not inherence beciuse it does not subsist as a positive fact. It cannot have the relation of inherence to anything, he
1 Abbivatram dravyādi atkānganyabhāvavuttvam, SV, 12. % Sarvadarśanasamgraha, Chapter on Vazgeşike system.

Page #211

192
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
cause non-existence cannot be the constitutive element of anything and also because inherence is possible only between two positive entities
As to the nature of non-existence there are different conceptions According to the Sāmkhya and the Prābhākara Mimāınsā, the non-existence of one thing in another means the mere existence of the latter. For example, the non-existence of a jill on the table means the existence of the table per se Hence non-existence is the mere existence of a locus (adhikaraṇakaivalyam). The Nyāya objects to this view and treats non-existence as an entity distinct from its locus (atırıktapadürlha). If non-existence nere the simple existence of the locus, it would become mdistinguishable from existence The table exists as much when the jar is non-existent as when it is existent on the table. So we may speak of a jar's non-existence on the table even when it actually exists there Non-existence is not the locus as such, but an objective character (viseșana) of it? It is not, like the colour of a table, a guņa or attıbute of the locus. It is only adjectival to or a determination of the locus which exists as a positive entity Non-existence or negation is thus a real and di-tinct entity which is adjectival to some positive fact. According to the Vedānta and the Bhāțta Mirnām sā also, non-existence is an entity distinct from the locus All objects live two characters, a positive anil a negitive Athing exists positively in itself and is characterised negatively by the absence of other things in it. This absence or non-existence of other things is not the mere existence of the thing in itself If the non-existence of a jar on the ground were the mere existence of the ground, we cannot speak of its non-existence when there is a cloth on the ground and so no cognition of the mere ground. On the other hand, we may speak of the
1 TKD , p 50, 80, pp 83-84
TC., 1, pp. 698f , SM, 2 & 12.

Page #212

ORDINARY PBRCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
193
jar's non-existence even when it exists on the ground, for the ground as such exists wbile there is a jar on it. Hence non-existence is something distinct from its locus.
Abhāva or ron-existence is of four kinds, namely, prāgabhava, pradhvaṁsābhāva, atyantābhāva, and anyonyābhāva.' Some Naiyāyıkas, however, bring the first three under the head of sansargābhāva and recognise only two kinds of non-existence. Samsargābhāva or the negation of a con. nection is that which is different from anyonyābhāra or the negation of identity. In the one the connection between two things is denied, in the other we deny the identity or sameness of two different things or concepts.
Prāgabhāva or antecedent non-existence is the non-existence of a thing prior to its production, e. g. the non-existence of an effect in the cause. So long as the effect 18 not produced, it is non-existent in the cause. This kind of non-existence is said to be without a beginning but not without an end (anādıḥ sāntah). It is subject to cessation (vināśya). The effect never existed before its production, so that its non-existence has no beginning. Its production at any time means the end or cessation of its previous nonexistence. Prāgabhāva thus refers to the past non-existence of a thing and implies the possibility of its future existence. Like the past it has no beginning but has an end, since it ends just when the thing begins to exist. The present existence of a thing ends its past non-existence, just as the past has its end in the present.
Pradhvaṁsābhāva or emergent non-existance is the nonexistence of a thing pastartox to its destruction, e.g. the? non-existence of an effect when it is destroyed. This kind of non-existence has a beginning but no end (sādiranantaḥ).
1 SD, pp. 83-84. I TS., p. 89 Cf VP., Ch. IV. INVT., 2. 2. 12 ; BP & 8 , 12
• BM , 12 ; TB , p. 29; T8., p. 89. 25—(1117B)

Page #213

194
It is subject to origin in time (janya), but not to cessation.1 When a jar is broken its existence ends, and its non-existtence begins but can never be ended, because the same jar cannot be brought back to existence. Pradhvamsabhava may thus be said to refer to the future non-existence of a thing in relation to its present existence. Like the future it has a beginning but no end. It begins just when a thing's present existence ceases, and continues for all time to come just as the future begins with the cessation of the present and extends indefinitely forwards Thus while pragabhāva is beginningless, pradhvamsabhāra is endless. The one is an infinite series backwards, the other is an infinite series forwards. The one has an end, while the other has a beginning. That is, an infinite series may have an end or a beginning. Kant in his first antinomy' failed to see this when he argued that what is infinite can neither begin nor end. This antinomy may be solved in the light of the Naiyayikas' finding that some infinite series have ends.
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Atyantābhāva or absolute non-existence is the negation of a connection between two things for all time (nityasamsargābhāva). It is subject neither to origin nor to cessation (ajanyāvināśī). Thus it is both beginningless and endless. This is illustrated by such cases of non-existence as a hare's horn, the colour of air, etc. The non-existence of a connection between horns and the hare, or colour and the air is true at all times, past, present and future. Thus atyantābhāva or absolute non-existence is not a cipher which is the property of a general term that applies to no object.
Anyonyabhava or reciprocal non-existence is the negation of identity or the difference between two things, e.g. a jar is
1 Ibid.
1 Nityasamsargābhāvat van atyantābhāvatvam, SM, 'tyantabhavaḥ, TB., 1bid.
ibid ;
traikaliko'bhāvo

Page #214

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND IT'S OBJECTS
195
not a cloth. A jar and a cloth mutually exclude each other, and so each is non-existent as the other. Anyonyābhāva stands for this mutual negation of the relation of identity between two things. Like absolute non-existence (atyantā. bhāva), reciprocal or mutual non-existence (anyonyābhāva), is eternal, 2.e. both beginningless and endless (ajanyāvināśi). But the distinction between the two is tbis. Absolute nonexistence has a material aspect. In it there is the affirmation of something actual (eg he hare or the air), and the negation of a relation with regard to it (e.g. the relation between hare and horn, or colour and air). On the other hand, reciprocal non-exisience is only a logical or furmal negation with reference to the relation of identity between two things which need not be actual. That ' X is not Y,' 'a red star is not a blue star' is true eren if no such things actually exist. In absolute non-existence we deny the connection between two things, while in reciprocal nonexistence the identity or sameness of two things or concepts is denied. The opposite of absolute non-existence is a connection between two things, while that of reciprocal nonexistence is the identity between them? The proposition 'there is no colour in the air’implies the absolute non-existence of colour in the air. The opposite of this will be a proposition which connects colour with the air, eg. there is colour in the air.' The proposition'a jar is not a cloth' implies the difference of the one from the other. The opposite of this will be a proposition which identifies the two, e.g. 'a jar is a cloth.'
As to how non-existence or negation is known by us, there is a sharp difference of opinion among the different systems of Indian philosophy. According to the Bbāțţa Mimāṁsā and the Vedānta, non-existence is known by non
1 Anyonyabbâvastu tadātmyapratıyogiko' bbävuh, ibid ? Te and TD , pp 89f

Page #215

196
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
perception of what should have been perceived (yogyanupalabdhi). It can not be known by perception. Perception requires sense-object contact. But there cannot be any contact of sense with non-existence or negation. It is not, in some cases at least, known by inference. When we know the non-existence of a jar on the ground before us, we have a direct knowledge which is not mediated by any inferential reasoning. In such cases our knowledge of non-existence comes from non-perception as a distinct source of knowledge. As we have already said, non-existence is, according to the Bhāțţa Mimāmā and the Vedānta, both an objective character of things, and a character of the presentation of things. But it is not perceived like the whiteness of snow or the redness of a rose. On the other hand, we have an immediate feeling of it as a character of the presentation just when we have that presentation. This subjective feeling of the presented character as distinct or the discriminative feeling of it is what we mean by our knowledge of it. Anupalabdhi is this subjective feeling and is an independent source of the knowledge of nonexistence.
The Vaišeşıka and the Prabhākara school hold that non-existence is known by inference. According to the former the non-existence of the cause is inferred from the non-existence of the effect, just as its existence is inferrea from that of the effect. In the Prābhākara Mimārasā also non-perception is not regarded as a distinct source of the knowledge of non-existence. Rather, the non-perception of a thing is the condition from which we inler its nonexistence. The Sāmkhya" and the Nyāya system agree in holding that non-existence 18 known by perception. Accord
! VP , Ch. VI; SD, pp 88-87 ! P8, P 111 ; Upaskära, p. 228 3 SN., pp 8 f.
TKD , pp. 50-51,

Page #216

197
ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
ing to both, non-existence is an objective determination (parināma or viseṣana) of some positive entity (bhāvapadār tha) and can be perceived by the senses. The Nyaya explains the perception of non-existence as due to an indirect sense-object contact, called viseṣaṇata. The non-existence of a jar on the ground is an adjective or determination (viseṣana) of the ground which is its substantive (viseṣya). This non-existence comes in contact with our sense through being adjectival (visesana) to the ground which is in conjunction (samyukta) with the sense Thus non-existence is perceived as an adjective or objective character of some positive thing which is in contact with our sense.1 That for the knowledge of non-existence there must be a contact of sense with its locus is also admitted by the Vedanta. And, that the knowledge of non-existence is aided by nonperception is admitted by the Nyaya. We know that a jar does not exist on the ground when we feel that it must have been perceived if it were on the ground. Thus the Nyaya and the Vedanta agree in holding that to know non-existence there must be a perception of the locus and non-perception of what does not exist in it. But while the Nyaya takes non-perception (anupalabdhi) as an auxiliary condition (karana) of the perception of non-existence, the Vedanta takes it as the unique cause (karana) of the knowledge of nonexistence. For the Nyaya, the senses which perceive the locus do also perceive non-existence as a determinant (visesana) of it. For the Vedanta, the senses are solely concern ed in the perception of the locus and do not go further than that And while the senses perceive a certain locus, the ground, they do not perceive a jar on it This non-perception, therefore, of what might have been perceived if it
1 TB, p 6. TC., I, pp 574-76,
1 Yadı syadupalabliyetetyevam yatıa prasa yate, BP., 62, yogyanupalabdhya abhavah pratyakṣaḥ, TM.

Page #217

198
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
existed, is the source of our knowledge of the jar's nonexistence.
Among Western thinkers it is now generally recognised that negative facts are as real as positive facts. But there is much difference of opinion as to how negation or nonexistence is known. According to Alexander, 'negation is not merely a subjective attitude of the mind. That is only an instance of negation, in the region of mental acts. Negation or negativity is a real character of things, which means exclusion or rejection. Not-white is the character which excludes or is different from white.' This then would support tbe Nyāya view that non-existence is perceived as a determination of some positive entity. This seems to be implied also in the 'iew of negation held by Bradley and Bosanquet. Bradleysays: “The affirmative judgment qualifies a subject by the attribution of a quality, and the negative judgment qualires a subject by the explicit rejection of that same quality" According to him, the truth of the negative lics in the affirmation of a positive quality In “A is not B” the real fact is a character a belonging to A, which is incompatible with B. The basis of negation is really the assertion of a quality that excludes (c). It is not the mere assertion of the quality of exclusion (not-B).' So too Bosanquet“ holds that affirmation is prior to negation as supplying the reality within which alone negation has a meaning. In this sense the non-existence of a jar on the ground will be equivalent to the existence of the ground as such. It is to be observed, however, that wbile the ground is perceived, its exclusion of a jar is not 80 perceived. The fact of there being no jar on the ground may be a given fact, but it is not given by way of sense
1 Vide TC., I, Ch on Apupalabdhi, VP , Ch. VI.
Space, Time and Derty, p. 200 3 Logic, Vol. I, pp. 116-17 4 Logic, Vol 1, p 261

Page #218

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
199
perception. As Russell' bas said, negative facts are real but not sensible facts. That' A is not B,' or that 'a jar does not exist on the ground' is more primarily a subject ive feeling of privation with regard to A, or the ground, than a perception of any sensible fact. Hence the Vedanta seems to be nearer the truth when it takes non-perception (anupalabdhi) as an independent source of the knowledge of non-existence or negation.
6. Internal perception and its objects
Internal perception is due to the internal sense or manas. Hence it is called mūnasa or antara pratyakşa. It is the knowledge of mental facts brought about by their contact (sannikarşa) with the inner sense or manas. Thus mānasa or internal perception is, like introspection, the source of our direct knowledge about mental or subjective facts. But while modern introspectionists take introspection to consist in the mind's knowledge of its own contents, the Naiyāyikas treat internal perception as knowledge of certain subjective facts other than, but due to, the mind as a sense. Generally speaking, the self and its contents are the objects of internal perception These are perceived when they come in contact with manas or the mind. In introspection the mind or self turns back on itself and perceives what is going on there without requiring any sense. The Naiyāyikas, however, like the older introspectionists, believe that the self requires an “inner sense" to perceive psychical facts, just as it requires the external senses to perceive external objects.
Among the objects of mānasa or internal perception the Bhāṣāpariccheda mentions the feelings of pleasure and pain, desire and aversion, cognition or knowledge and all kinds of
1 Analysis of Mind, p 276,

Page #219

200
NYAYA TABORY OF KNOWLEDGE
mental effort or volition. To these we may add the universal of each of these attributes, their non-existence and inherence in the self, and the self itself? All of these are perceived when there is contact (sannikarşa), in some form or other, between them and the internal sense of manas Let us now consider the process involved in the perception of these objeets.
According to the Nyāya, pleasure and pain, desire and aversion, cognition and volition are attributes of the self. Their relation to the self is one of inherence (samavāya). They are perceived when the mind as a sense comes in contact with them. This sense-object contact is not one of direct conjunction (saryoga). It is an indirect contact called samyukta-samavāya. Pleasure, pain and the rest as particular fuets, co:ne in contact with the mind through their 10 herence (samavāya) in the self which is conjoined (samyukta) with the mind. Similarly, the universals of pleasure, pain, etc., are perceived through that kind of indirect sense-contact which is called samyukta-samavetasamaviya. The universals of pleasure and pain (sukhatvaduḥkhatva) subsist in particular pleasures and pains by way of inherence (samkvāya). The particular pleasures and pains exist in the soul as its inherent attributes (şamavelaguņāh). Hence the mind comes in contact with the universals of pleasure and pain through their inherence in what inhere in the soul which is conjoined to the mind. In perceiving any particular pleasure or pain we do perceive its pleasurableness or painfulness quite as directly, although the process of perception is more mediated and complicated.' So also, we perceive that pleasure, pain, etc , inhere in the self so long as they exist or are present. And just as we perceive their existence so also we perceive their non-exist
1 Mapograbya sukharh dohkhamiochi dvoro matih kftih, BP., 87, 1 TK., p. 9. I Vide SM , 57 : TB., p. 6.

Page #220

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
201
ence or absence. That 'I am unhappy,' or 'I have ceased to be angry' is as much a matter of direct perception as that I am happy,' or 'I am angry.' The process of perception is, however, somewhat different. The perception of the inherence (samavāya) of pleasure and pain, as also of their non-existence (abhāva) in the self is mediated by the indirect sense-object contact called viseşanată. Both the inherence of a present pleasure and the non-existence of a past one are determinations (viseșana) of the self: They are perceived when the mind as sense comes in contact with them through its conjunction with the sel which has those determinations. It is only in the percep tion of the self that there is a direct sense-object contact The self as a substance comes in actual contact (sainyoga with manas or the mind as another substance, and thereby becomes an object of internal perception. It cannot bi perceived by the external senses, since it possesses neither a limited dimension (mahattva) nor any manifest (udbhūta, colour or touch. According to some Naiyāyikas, the pure self cannot be an object of perception. The self is perceived only as related to some perceptible attribute like cognition, pleasure, etc. We do not perceive the self as such but as feeling or knowing or doing something. Hence the self is perceived through the perception of this or that state of consciousness. While one's own self can be perceived, other selves can only be inferred from their bodily actions or behaviours. According to the Vedānta, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion and volition are perceived, but their perception requires no sense organ like manas or the mind. They are the different parts or
1 TB., p 6.
? Manabantareņendriyeņa yadātmavişayakam šādam jangate' bemiti tada man indriyamātmārthaḥ, Ibid.
3 BP & SM , 49-50 4 Ibid
26-(1117 B)

Page #221

202
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
aspects of the antaḥkarana. As such, there is a natural identification between these and the antaḥkarana or the mind. This identification means a perception of all that is identified with the antahkarana. In short, mental states are perceived facts because they are mental, and so do not require any sense to perceive them."
As to the question how cognition or knowledge is known, there is a sharp difference of opinion among pbilosophers. Some thinkers who deny the possibility of introspection would say that knowledge can never be known. This is the position taken up by Comte, Dunlap and others. Comte thought that knowing cannot be known, since it involves a division of the mind into two parts, wbich is impossible So too, Duplap, in his article “ The case against Introspection,"urges that there is a dualism of subject and object, that the subject can never become object, and therefore there can be no awareness of an awareness. He says. “Knowing there certainly is ; known, the knowing certainly is not." Again he says : “I am never aware of an awareness” But if this is so, how do we know that there is any knowledge or awareness at all ? Dunlap says that it is ' by being aware of something ?' This means that when I am aware of something, I am aware of being aware of it To know something is thus to know that something is known. Hence it cannot be denied that knowledge is somehow known, be it by introspection or not. As Russell has pointed out, 'the statement “I am aware of a colour" is assumed by Dunlap to be known to be true, but he does not explain how it comes to be known.'
Hence the next question is How is it that knowledge is known ? According to the Sāṁkhya, the Prābbākara Mimāmsā and the Advaita Vedānta, knowledge is known by
1 VP , Ch 1.
Psychologscal Review, Sept., 1912 • Analysis of Mond, p 115,

Page #222

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
203
itself. Cognition or knowledge is a conscious fact and it is the very nature of consciousness to be aware of itself. The point bas been elaborated by the Prābhākaras in their theory of triputīsamvit or triune perception. According to it, every knowledge manifests itself at the same time that it mani. fests an object and the knowing subject. It is at once a manifestation of three things, namely, knowledge, the object, and the knower. The Jainas also take a similar view with regard to the nature of knowledge. The Advaita Vedānta takes knowledge or intelligence to be the essence of the self, the very stuff of it. As such, knowledge is selfmanifest and self-shining (svaprakāśa). It does not require anything else to manifest or know it On this view, every cognition is self-cognised, and consciousness is full and complete awareness of something by a self. But that 'every knowledge is self-conscious knowledge,' or 'to be aware of something is also to be aware of that awareness' is a proposition which is not borne out by psychological facts. Subconscious or unconscious experiences of the mind cannot be said to be full and explicit awareness of themselves. Further, as Russell has remarked, it is highly probable that children and the bigher animals are aware of objects, but not of their own awareness.
According to the Bbāțţa Mīmārāsā," knowledge cannot be directly known. We can never know any knowledge immediately by itself or by any introspection called internal perception. That we have an awareness or a knowledge of some object is no doubt a matter of knowledge for us. But this latier knowledge is not at all immediate and perceptual knowledge ; it is only mediate and inferential knowledge. When we are aware of something, it comes to have the
1 Vide Prakaranapancika, p 59.
Vide VP , Ch 1. 3 Analysis of Mind, pp 115-16. 4 Vide SD , pp 56-57

Page #223

204
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
character of being an object of our knowledge' (jñātatā). But how can a thing have this character of being known),' unless there was previously some knowledge of it ? Hence from the character of 'being known' or being cognised' in the known object we infer the antecedent existence of knowledge or cognition. Thus knowledge is neither selfmanifested nor directly perceived, but inferred from the character of 'knownness' or 'cognisedness' (jñātatā) in the object that has been known or cognised, The Naiyāyikas reject this view on the ground that 'knownness' cannot be a character of objects, for objects acquire no character from their relation to knowledge.
The Naiyāyikas, as we have already seen, hold that knowledge is known by introspection or internal perception (mānasa pratyaksa). According to them, cognition or knowledge manifests its objects, but not itself. It points beyond itself and can never be directed to itself. Hence cognition or knowledge cannot be self-manifested. It does not, however, follow that knowledge cannot be at all known or manifested. Just as an object is manifested by a cognition of it, so one cognition is manifested by another that follows it and makes it an object to itself. First there is the cognition of an object (vyavasāya), and then another cognition coming after it cognises the first, 1.e. there is an after-cognition (anuvyavasāya) of the first cognition. It follows that every cognition is not necessarily cognised, that awareness of an object is not always an awareness of itself. It is only wben the self or mind attends to, and casts an introspective glance at it, that one cognition or knowledge is known or perceived. This view of tbe Naiyāyikas has the support of many modern introspectionists like Stout, Laird and others. Thus Stout observes : "Psychical states as such become objects only when we attend to them
1 TR , P 53 , TD, p 32,

Page #224

ORDINARY PERCEPTION AND ITS OBJECTS
205
in an introspective way. Otherwise they are not themselves objects, but only constituents of the process by which objects are coynised.''! So too, Laird says: “Certainly, our cognitive processes are, in their usual exercise, processes with which (not at which) we look ; and none of them, perbapa, can look at itself. It does not follow, however, that another (introspective) look cannot be directed towards this process of looking, ..."? This means that one cognition is known by another by way of introspection. But for the Naiyāyikas, introspection involves a peculiar difficulty. It supposes the simultaneous presence of two cognitions, wbich is not adınitted by the Naiyāyıkas. Hence we are to say that the cognition, which is cognised by another cognition, is past in relation to the second cognition which is present. This implies that introspection is really memory or retrospection of what is past. But there cannot be any memory without a previous perception corresponding to it, Hence we are committed to the view that every cognition somehow cognises itself. It may not have an explicit awareness of itself, but only an implicit or vague feeling of its presence. As Stout bas elsewhere said : “ The stream of consciousness feels its own current." 3 Hence the way in wbich cognition or knowledge (or for the matter of that, the mind) knows itself is quite different from that in wbich it knows an object external to itself. This has been very well recognised by Alexander in his distinction between an enjoying and a contemplating consciousness. He says that 'in any experience the mind enjoys itself and contemplates its object, that the mind is not a contemplated object to itself, and that introspection is not contemplation.'' Hence
1 Manual of Psychology, p 184
Contemporary British Philosophy, First Series, p. 227. 3 Analytic Psychology, Vol 1, p. 160 4 Space, Time and Derty, Vol 1, pp 12-17

Page #225

NIÄYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
we conclude that knowledge is known directly by itself. This knowledge of knowledge however is neither an explicit manifestation por a definite perception of it, but a feeling or an enjoying consciousness of itself.
206

Page #226

CHAPTER IX
THREE MODES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
1. Nirvikalpaka and savikalpaka perceptions
As we have noticed in a previous chapter, perception has been divided by the Naiyayikas into two broad classes, namely, laukika or the ordinary and alaukika or the extraordinary. This division depends on the nature of the sense-object contact that is involved in all perceptions. Ordinary perception again, has been divided into the six kinds of olfactory, gustatory, visual, tactual, auditory and mental perceptions. Such classification of ordinary perceptions has reference to the senses concerned in perception. According to another classification, ordinary perception is of two kinds, namely, nirvikalpaka or the indeterminate and savikalpaka or the determinate. Here the principle of classification is the character of the perceptual knowledge which arises from sense-object contact. To these two kinds of perception we may add pratyabhijñā or recognition as a special form of determinate perception. Thus keeping in view the nature of perception, the Naiyayikas distinguish between three modes of ordinary perception, namely, the nirvikalpaka, the savikalpaka and pratyabhijñā. Extraordinary perception being explicit and definite knowledge, has but one mode, namely, the savikalpaka or determinate. '
While the distinction between nirvikalpaka and savi kalpaka perceptions is generally recognised in Indian philosophy, there is much difference of opinion, among the
1 Alnukkah tu,, savikalpakameva, Nyayakota, p. 499.

Page #227

208
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
different systems, as to their exact nature and validity. The grammarian philosophers (šābdikas) along with others take the extreme view that all perceptions are savikalpaka or determinate, since every perception must be expressed in a verbal proposition and is corrsequently predicative in its character. This is met-by- another. extreme view,- held by the Buddhists and some Vedāntists, that nirvikalpaka or indeterminate perception alone is valid, while savikalpaka or determinite perception is false knowledge Between these two extremes we may place the other systems of philosophy which accept both nirvikalpaka and savikalpaka perceptions as true knowledge, Thus among the different theories of perception in Indian philosophy there seems to be a sort of gradation from the most abstract to the most concrete vew of perception.
In the Advaita Vedānta system we seem to bave the most abssraet view of nirvikalpaka perception. Accordıng to it, nirvikalpaka is the knowledge of pure being (sunmātram). It is a cognition of the 'this' or the existent as such, bụt not as determined by anything. To determine a thing is to characterise it by this or that quality and 18 thus to distinguish it from other things having different qualities. All this, however, is the work of discriminative thought (vikalpa). Prior to discrimination - there cannot be any cognition of an object as such-and-such, 3.e as a determinate reality. Hence nirvikalpaka perception must be the cognition of pure indeterminate being. It is in savikalpaka perception that an object is determined by certain qualities and is distinguished from different objects. But all objects being ultimately one undifferentiated unity of intelligence (caitanya), their distinction or difference is only an appearance. The view of the world as a plurality of independent reals 18 not only opposed to scriptural testimony, but also logically untenable and self-contradictory. Hence we are to say that savikalpaka gives us a knowledge of

Page #228

THREE MODES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
209
appearances, while nirvikalpaka gives us the ultimate truth. 1
The episternology of the Neo-Advaita Vedānta is in agreement with the general metaphysical position of the earlier school. Froin the vyāvahārika or practical standpoint it makes a distinction butween savikalpaka :ind nirvikalpaka perceptions. Accordiug to it, the savikalpaka is the knowledge of a thing as qualified by an attribute (varsistyāvagāhi). In it the thing is related as subject to the attribute as its predicate Hence the essence of savikalpaka perception is the determination of its object by way of predication. The perception of an object as a jar is savikalpaka, since the quality of 'jarness' is predicated of the object. On the other hand, nirvikalpaka 13 the knowledge of a thing as not related to anything, not even to itself (samsargānavagāhi). It is the knowledge of a thing as the identical excluding all relations. Hence in nirvikalpaka perception there cannot be any predication of the object in terms of the subject-predicate or substantive-adjective relation (višesya-visesana-sambandha). As instance of such nirvikalpaka or non-relational knowledge, the Vedāntist mentions the propositions. this is that man,' that art thou.' When in the presence of a man we have it said this is that Devadatta,' we have the perception of Devadatta as the same identical man. This knowledge of the man is nirvikalpaka, since its object is not qual:fied by or related to anything. What we apprehend here is the simple identity of the man in the past and the present, but not his relation to any time, space, or anything else. It is true that the man may have certain attributes and is related to this or that time and space. But in the perception in question we are not at all concerned with his relation to any attribute, but only with his identity as such. It may be urged here that since the knowledge is grounded
10.
1 Vode Rāmännja's commentare on the Vedāntasūtra, 11.1, SD. 27—(1117B)

Page #229

210
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
on a proposition (vākyajanya), it cannot but be relational in character. A proposition is the assertion of a relation between two things, of which one is the subject and the other predicate. Hence the knowledge this is that man' must be savikalpaka or predicative. To this the Advaita Vedāntist replies that a proposition which asserts the identity of an object does not come under the law of predi. cation. When we say this is that man' we do not predicate that man 'of' this' It is not the case that we relate this man 'with 'that man,' but simply assert the identity between the two. An identity proposition (akhandārtha vākya) thus gives us non-predicative or non-relational knowledge (nirvikalpaka jñāna). Thus we see that, according to the Advaita Vedānta, nirvikalpaka perception is a judgment of identity expressed in a proposition The identity that is perceived in nirvikalpaka does not pertain to any of the specifi, attributes or parts of the perceived object. It refers only to the unity of the object as an unrelated essence, i.e. as pure being. But while the
identical' perceived in nirvikalpaka is an abstract unity of being, our knowledge of it is a propositional judgment of the non-predicative order (akhaņdārtha vākya). The Velăntist furtber holds that nirvikalpaka perception is self-manifest or self-conscious knowledge. It is perceived by itself (pratyakşa), and does not require any other knowledge to manifest or perceive it. It follows also that we have first the savikalpaka perception of an object as related to certain qualities and then a nirvikalpaka perception of it as a unity that remains identical with itself under different conditions.
According to the Buddhists, nirvikalpaka is the only type of valid perception. It is such cognition of an object as contains no element of thought or ideation in it (kalpanā
1 VP., Ch. T.

Page #230

THREE MUDES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
211
podham). Ordinarily, knowledge involves two elements, namely, the given or the sensed and the meant or the ideated. The Buddhists hold that what is given is a unique individual (svalakşaņa) that belongs to no class and is not related to anything. We may call it by a name, bring it under a class and think of it as having certain qualities, actions and relations. But its name, class, quality, action and relation are not any part of what is directly given ; these are the contributions of our mind (kalpanā) to the given experience. Hence nirvikalpaka perception is a cognition of the given datum as such, i. e. as not modified by any idea or concept like those of its name, class, etc. (nāmajātyādyasaryutam). It is a pure sensation of the simples of experience and does not lend itself to any verbal expression (ubhılāpasamsargāyogyapratibhāsam). As contrasted to this, savikalpaka perception is a verbalised experience, in which the object is determined by the concepts of name, class, relation, etc. Here we think of the object as a complex of parts and attributes, bearing a certain name and having certain relations. Such knowledge, however, is false, since it is not due to the given object, but to our conceptual construction of it. Thus the Budlhists reduce nirvikalpaka to pure sensation which is valid but blind, and savika'paka to conceptual knowledge which is definite but false. Be it noted, bowever, that the Buddhist's nirvikalpaka as a cognition of the simples or unique individuals of experience is less abstract than the Advaitin's nirvikalpaka as a cognition of pure being.
In the Mimāmsā, the Sāmkhya and the Nyāya-Vaiseşika system we have what may be called a concrete view of perception. According to these realistic schools, what is
1 Digdaya, Pramanasamuccaya, Ch I ; NBT pp 9 f. 3 Cf " A pare tn svalak$anamätragocaram pa vikalpakamicchanti," SD., p. 41.
3 NVT, 1. 14, Madbavācāryya, Sarvadarśanasangraha Chapter on Bauddha philosopby Vide also NM, pp 92 f.

Page #231

212
NYAYA TA EORY OF KNOWLEDGE
given in perception is not, as the Advaitins think, a pure unity of being or the abstract identity of the 'this ' and
that' of experience. Nor is it, as the Buddhists suppose , the abstract individual, the bare particular or the mere
this' of experience. On the other hand, it is held in these systems that any perception, niivikalpaka or savıkalpaka, is a direct cognition, of the real individual which is a unity of the universal and the particular The distinction between nirvikalpaka and savikalpaka is not due to any difference in the contents of perception, but to the way in which the same contents of experience may be ordered and arranged. As we shall see, however, there is some difference of opinion as to the nature and structure of nirvihalpaka perception between the Bhātta Mīmānsã and Sămkhya systems, on the one hand, and the Prābhākara and NyāyaVaisesika systems, on the other
According to the Sāmkhy, and the Bbātta Mīmānsā, both niruikalpaka and savikalpaka are equally valid and necessary modes of perceptual knowledge By nirvikalpaka they mean that cognition which spontaneously anses at the first moment of contact between sense and object? It is a knowledge of the object as one individual whole of generic and specific attributes. There is no differentiation between the universal and the particular that are combined in the body of the individual Hence there is only an apprehension of the individual as an indefinite object (sammugdhavastumātra), but no definite understanding of it as this or that kind of object (vastuvišeşa)? Nirvikalpaka perception thus resembles the perception of the children and dumb persons. Like the latter perception, it is a simple apprehension of an object as something, but not as this or that kind of
1 Akşa-apoipātán intaramaviviktasāmängaviseşavibhāgam sammugdhavastumatra. gocaramilocanajñādam, SD, p. 40.
2 Sammugdhaṁ vastumātrantu prāggrh antyavikalpitam, tatgā månyaviserabhyam kalpayapti manisiņah, TKD, 27.

Page #232

THREE MODES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
213
(
thing. So, likewise, it cannot be expressed in words, i. e. embodied in propositions. Thus nirvikalpaka perception is a simple apprehension, in which the 'this' of experience is brought under the general idea of something' (vastusãmanya). It is a judgment without words, i e. a non-propositional judgment.' That nirvikalpaka is a real mode of perception appears from the fact that it is the basis of what we call reflex actions and savikalpaka perceptions. When a man suddenly withdraws his finger from a pricking pin, we cannot say that there is in him a clear understanding of the pricking object as a pin. Yet without some knowledge of the object his action remains unintelligible. What prompts the man's action in this case is properly described as nirvikalpaka perception of something pricking him.' Again, savikalpaka perception is understood by all as the predicative knowledge of an object (vaisiṣṭyāvagāhi jñāna). In it the homogeneous indefinite object of nirvikalpaka perception is analysed into the universal and the particular (sāmānya-viśeṣa), and the two are then related by way of predication. Thus when I perceive an animal as a cow, my perception is savikalpaka, since I definitely predicate' cowness' of the animal before me. Now such predication is possible only through comparison of the animal in question with other objects of our past experience and recollection of their respective classnames. But the impetus to the acts of comparison and verbal memory must be given by a previous cognition of the animal as some kind of thing. This first nirvikalpaka cognition of the animal as something (vastusāmānya) is necessary for the subsequent savikalpaka understanding of it as this particular kind of thing (vastuviśesa), i.e. as a COW. The indefinite individual of the first experience is analysed into this thing' as a particular, and cowness' as a
6
"
1 Ibid.

Page #233

214
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
universal in relation to it and qualifying it as a predicate. This is the savika!paka knowledge of the thing in terms of the substantive-adjective relation, and it is expressed as a verbal judgment of the form : 'this 18 a cw.'' Thus we see that, according to the Sīmkhya and Bhāțţa Mimāṁsā schbols, nirvikalpaka and savikalpaka are but two stages in the perception of the sims fact. The foriner is a stage of unverbalısed judgment of an object as an individual whole, while the latter is a verbal judgment of it by way of predication.
In the Nyāya-Vaiseșika and Prābhākara Mimāṁsā systems we find a theory of perception which is in substantial agreement with that just explained above. According to the Nyāya-Vaiseşı kas, ordinary perception is of two kinds, namely, nirvikalpaka and savikalpaka, both of which are equally valid and grounded in reality. They hold that nirvikalpaka is not merely a cognition of the bare particular (svalakşıņa), since it manifests the universal (sāmānya) as well. If the universal is not cogorsed at the nirvikalpaka stage, our knowledge of it at a subsequent savikalpaka stage becomes inexplicable. But for a direct knowledge of the universal as a unity of the particulars we could not recognise them as similar and group them together into one class. The universal cannot be constructed by our mind at any stage of our knowledge, unless we start with it as a directly given fact. Nor again, is nirvikalpaka a knowledge of the abstract
1 SD. & 6C., p 40 , TED, 27
* Some commentators on the Nyåya system think that the distinction between nirotkalpaka and sadikalpaka is not recognised in the Sūtrı, Bhagya and Våritika, and that it was introduced into the Nyå.a philosophy by later logicians Våraspati Miørs however, 10 h18 Tātparyaţikā (p 125) traces the distinction to Nyaya-Sutra, 1.14 Following his t acher, Trilocaoa, he takes the words adyapadekyam and oya. pasāyātmakam contined in this sūtra to meen respectively nirvikalpaka and sads. kalpaka perceptions Later Naigåyikas follow Vacaspati in this interpretation of the sútry and hold that it distinguishes between nirdikalpaka and savikalpaka 88 two kinds of ordinary perceptions.
3 NM, P 98

Page #234

THREE MODES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
215
universal (sāmānyamätra), or of pure being (sattā). Our first cognition of a thing is not merely an apprebension of its unity, but also of its differences. When we perceive anything, its manifoldness is as much manifest to consciousness as its unitary character. It is cognised as a unity of many parts, qualities and aspects. Likewise, if nothing but mere being (saltā) be the content of immediate apprehension, we do not know how to account for our knowledge of the particulars (višeşa) of experience. Further, pure being which is nothing in particular cannot be the object of our knowledge' Hence we are to admit that in nirvikalpaka perception there is a cognition of both the universal and the particular, the generic and specific properties of an object as such ? It is a knowledge of the perceived object with all the wealth of its concrete characters in themselves. It cognises the universal or the class-essence present in the object of perception as well as its colour, form, structure and other specific characteristics. Thus the nirvikalpaka or indeterminate perception of an orange is the cognition which is produced immediately after the contact of the senses with the object, and which manifests its generic and specific properties in their isolation It gives us a knowledge of the orange, not as orange, but as the grouping of a certain colour, taste, smell, etc., with a certain universal called orangeness. But while both the universal and the particulars constituting an object are cognised in nirvikalpaka perception, they are not brought under the substantiveadjective relation (višeşyaviseşanasambandhānavagāhi). In nirvikalpaka perception these are cognised as unrelated units
1 Ibid
9 Sämänyaviseşeşu svarūpålocanamätram pratyaksam, PS., p. 187, birrakalpakam ... såmauyam videgain cobhyamapı ghnáti, NK., p 189,
SM., 58. • Avgapa lebyam jätyädisvarūpå vagabi na tu jätyādināın mitho visesa Qaviersya. bli& våvagabītı, NVT', p 185,

Page #235

216
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
of reality. Here then the object of perception is not koown as a particular related to a certain universal. It is not judged as an individual belonging to a certain class and bearing that class-name Hence nirvikalpaha is the knowledge of an object as not characterised in any way (nışpı akāraka).' It is an apprehension of the object as 'something,' but not as related to a class and called by a name (nāmajātyādiyojanāhīnam ... kiñcididamıtı). Hence it is not a judgment of the object in terms of the subjectpredicate relation (varsiștyūnavagāhı). On the other hand, it is a simple apprehension of the existence and attubutes of an object without any corresponding judyinent of it in words, or by way of predication
Accuiding to some linguistic thinkers there cannot be any nirvikalpaha perception in the sense of an unverbalised experience as explained above They hold that we cannot think things except through words. All objecis are inse parably connected with the words by which they are denoted. To cognise a thing is to know it as such-and-such and so to relate it to a denotative word (vācakaśabda). Likewise, we can act in relation to a thing only when we know it precisely as of this or that kind, 2. e. determine it by means of a class-name. In fact, all our coynitions are embodied in vei bal propositions, such as ' I know a colour,'
I have a taste,' 'It is a smell,' and so on. All cognitions being thus inseparable from verbal expressions, there can be no niruzkalpaka or unverlalısed cognition The NyāyaVašeşikas repudiate the linguistic contention on the following grounds. In the case of children and dumb persons there is undoubtedly a knowledge of many objects, but no verbal expression of that knowledge. Even in the case
1 Nimajátyádıyo.apărabitam vaiśıştjäna va gāhi nisprakärukam dirvikalpakaw, TC , 1, p 809.
Nirvikalpakam videşyaprakárådırabitem vastusvarūpamátrajñādam, TM., Oh II. 3 NB., 1, 1, 4, MB., 189,

Page #236

THREE MODES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
217
of grown up persons, who are in the habit of expressing their thoughts in words, there is such a thing as sensation which is a bare apprehension of something, but no verbal judgment of it. The first stage of perception is a sensory cognition arising just with the contact between sense and object. Like the perception of the child or the dumb person, it does not require and bas not the time to develop into verbal judgment The verbal expression of sensory cognitions is a later stage of perception, which serves the purpose of social intercourse and com nunication. The linguistic contention that objects are inseparable from their corresponding words leads to absurd consequences. If it were true that all objects are inseparably connected with all the words denoting them, even children and idiots should know all those words when they perceive the objects. It follows also that a man who perceives the words' colour,'
sound,' etc , should liave a knowledge of the objects denoted by them, even though he may be deprived of their special sense organs. Hence the Naiyāyıkas conclude that all cognitions need not necessarily be verbally expressed knowledge. As a matter of fact, what enables us to recall the words with which an obiect is associated is a previous nirvikalpaka cognition of it as an existent fact. Our first experience of an object is a simple apprehension of its existence apart from any verbal association. Such simple unverbalised experience is the ground of our subsequent judgment of it in words or predicative propositions. Hence nirvikalpaka is a real stage of perception."
According to the Naiyāvikas, nirvikalpaka is a real but not a perceived fact (atīndriya). It is a conscious, but not a self-conscious state. The Naiyāyikas hold that to be self-conscious means, for a conscious state, to be per
1 NB and NK , ibid. 3 Jandirvikalpakhyam tadatfodriyamışyate, BP, and SM , 5A,
28 (1117B)

Page #237

18
NYIYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
ived by another state of consciousness. In self-consciousess (anuvyavasaya) one cognition is cognised by another bich follows the first and apprehends it as an object to self. But there cannot be a cognition of nirvikalpaka ognition. To cognise a cognition is to know it explicitly 3 a cognition of this or that object To become conscious I a mental state is to refer it explicitly to the self, on the ne hand, and some definite object, on the other. Thus y awareness of a perception (anuvyavasāya) appears in the ›rm I know this jar,' or ' I know thus table.' Nirvikalala perception is a knowledge of the uncharacterised bject It is an unlifferentiated feeling of the indefinite. s such, it cannot be known as a perception of this or that bject. Hence the Naiyāyik is differ from the Advaitins holding that nirvikalpaka percepti in cinnot be perceived r directly known. 1 Although we cannot perceive it, we in logically prove it. The exist nce of nirvikalpaka erception is proved by inference. In savikalpaka percepon an object is known as related to certain quilities But 7e cannot know the relation between a thing and its ualities unless we previously know these in themselves. irvikalpaka is this prior knowledge of the thing and its ualities as unrelated entities. It is the ground of our vikalpaka or relational knowledge about the thing. Hence re must admit nirvikalpaka as the first stage of all grades f perception, since a simple cognition of existents as such the precondition of all complex cognitions of their different elations. Thus the reality of nirvikalpaka is inferred from avikalpaka perception."
With regard to savikalpaka perception, the NyājaTaiseṣikas agree with others in holding that it is the cog
1 Nirvikalpakam na pratyskeam
navati, ghatamaham 'ānāmīti pratyayat, etc, SM, 58.
2 Visista vaidistyajñānam prati hi videgap tavacchedaka-prakarakah jñānaṁ rapam, etc., TC., I, p. 812,
vaisistyana vagahiñanasya pratyaksa i na

Page #238

THREE MODES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
219
nition of an object as qualified by certain attributes (višiştajñāna). In it the object of perception is known as characterised by some qualities. So it is a judgment in which certain attributes are related to the object by way of predication, e.g. this is a cow.'' Here the attribute of cowness is predicated of the presented object. Hence savikalpaka perception is always expressed in a proposi'ion, of which the subject is the thing perceived and the predicate is the attribute present in the thing from this it follows that the contents of savikalpaka perception are the same as those of the nirvikalpaka. It is the same object that is cognised in both. . But while in the former the object and its attributes stand in the subject-predicate relation, in the latter they are not so related. Hence the tuo differ, not in their object or content, bu only in point of prediction. Salihaipala is a julyment of the olject in Words ur propusitions lut nirvika pika is a judgment of it not in words or propositions The one in a predicative, while the other is a pon-predicative juigment of the saine olject or fact. ?
While nirukalpaka is the first, savikalpaka is the second stage of an ordinary perception The first tage develops into the second in the cause of all norinal individuals wh) know the use of any language. The process of duvel pinent from the one to the other is explamed by a 3sociation and memory. In the case of the perceptional judgme it: 'this is a cow.' the first step is the contict of sense with the object, which immediately leads to a nirvikalpaha perception or simple apprehension of the cow as soinetbing indefinite. The indefinite object of nirvikalpaka perception being associated with a certain class-nawe in our past experience revives the
1 avikapukarica visişğa Danaṁ yati.& gaurayamıtı ibid., p 839 Savikalp kan nama'atyádiyo ana makam, TB PB
? Tae..aty & eve vastvalmā guvikalpakasyn gocarab 88 eva dirvikalpakasya bandol. lekha vivarilah . Tha & stojå nusandbanimátramabbyadb kam param, viņaye na to bbodo'sti savikalpåvikelpayoh, NM., p. 99

Page #239

220
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
"
1
nor
word-image answering to that name. With this we remember the class-name of the perceived object and call it by that name. It is here that we have a savikalpaha perception of the object expressed in the proposition this is a cow.' The Buddhists deny the validity of the sachalpaka mode of perception. They contend that what is given in perception is a bare particular which belongs to no class and bears no name, .e. has no relations. Its class, name, etc., are only thought-relations which do not exist in the object, but are introduced into it by the thinking subject to meet the needs of our practical life. From the standpoint of the Nyaya realism, however, there is no error in the savikalpaka perception of an object as qualified by certain attributes and called by a name. According to it, what is given in nirvikalpaka perception is neither a characterless an uncharacterisable object, although it be not so far characterised in any way. In reality the object is a concrete individual in which certain particulars or specific attributes are united with a certain class-essence or universal. While in nirvikalpaka the object is apprehended as an undifferentiated whole of the universal and the particulars, in savikalpaka these are analysed, unfolded and recombined into the substantive-adjective relation. Hence it cannot be said that savikalpaka is concerned only with thought-relations which have no objective basis. Rather, it unfolds all that is implicitly involved in the nirvikalpaka stage and expresses it in the form of a proposition. It does not add anything that is not contained in the object itself. It represents no change or development in the object of perception. On the other hand, it marks a change in the perceptive consciousness of the object, a development of it from a dumb feeling of something there' to an articulate expression of
1 Vide NVT., p. 128, NK., p. 192.
1 Vide NVT., pp. 188 f., and TR, pp. 60-61.

Page #240

THREE MODES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
221
the feeling as a cognition of this or that definite thing. Hence savikalpaka is as valid as, but more expressive than, nirvikalpaka perception."
Yet another theory of perception, which we have to consider no., presents wluit my be called the most concrete view of perception. It takes up the extreme position that all perceptions are savikalpaka or determinate and that there is no such thing as a perfectly indeterminale (nirtikalpaka) perception. This view of perception is shared by the Cārvākas, the Jamas, the ancient Sābdikas and the Viśıstādvaita Vedānta of Rāmānuja According to Rāmānuja, to know a thing is to know it as possessed of certain attributes. A thing's existence cannot be separated from its nature and attributes. To know the 'that' or existence of a thing is also to know the ' what'or the nature of its existence. All knowledge is, therefore, a definite cognition of some object as related to a certain class and qualifie.. by certain attributes. It is always a determinate (savikalpaka) cignition of the object as this or that kind of thing. There cannot be any knowledge of the perfectly indeterminate That which is no thing in particular cannot be the object of our knowledge. Hence there is no such thing as nude!erminate (nirvikalpaka) knowledge in the sense of a cognition of what is not determined or characterised in any way (niruiseșa). There being thus no absolutely indeterınınate knowledge, the distinctin of nirvikalpaka and savikalpaka perception is a relative distinction. It is a distinction between two perceptions, both of which cognise an object as somehow qualified and determined (saviseşavisaya). But while in niivikalpaka the object of perception is partially determined, in savikalpaka it is determined more fully and clearly. Thus the first perception of a cow is nirvikalpaka in the sense of being a cognition of it as an animal of a certain make-up, or of some kind, but not
1 Vide NVT., pp 197.44, NM., pp. 64-69.

Page #241

222
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
of this or that particular kind. On the other hand, the perception of the same object, in the case of an adult who knows cows as a class, will be savikalpaka in so far as the object is here further determined and definitely known as belonging to the class of cows. Savihalpaka and nirvikalpaka perceptions are thus cognitions, not of the characterised and uncharacterised, but of the more or less definitely characterised object.
The Cārvākas, the Sābolikas and the Jainas go further than Rāmānuja and hold that nirvikalpaka perception is not real in any sense. According to the Jainas, all true knowledge must be a definite and an assured cognition of objects (vyavasāyātmakam jñānam). What distinguishes true knowledge from doubt, error and the rest is the fact that it is a firm belief which is also true. It is a definite judginent of au oluject as this and not as ibat. In it there is a definite affirmation or denial that an object is or is not such-andsuch. In the so-called nirvikalpaka perception, however, there is no such definite assertion of anything about any object Hence it cannot be recognised as a form of valid knowledge. Furtber, all knowledge being implicit in and manifested by the self, perception is only conditioned and not produced by the function of the senses Every perception, just when it occurs, will be a complete manifestation of the object. In perception there need not be a transition from an initial stage of vague and unorganised sense-impressions to that of distinct and determinate knowledge. All true perceptions are, therefore, determinate (savikalpaka) cognitions of objects as they really are in themselves.*
The same conclusion has been reached by the Sābdikas or grammarian philosophers on the ground of the intimate
i Pratyakfasya Dirvikalpakagavikalpakabhedsbbonusya da dirviseşavastupi pram pabbi vab, etc., Sribhäsyo, 1.11
Vide Prameyakamalamartanda, 1. 3 Tapniscayatmakar samáropa viruddbatvadanumanavat, ibid, 8. 4 Ibid., p. 8.

Page #242

THREE MODES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
228
relation between thought and language. According to them, all objects are inseparably connected with the words or terms denoting them. All our thoughts and cognitions of things are expressed in words and propositions. We cannot think of things except through their corresponding denotative terms.' Bhartshari, a grammarian philosopher, lays it down as a general rule that there can be no thought without language and that all knowledge must be verbalised experience It follows, therefore, that all our perceptions must be cognitions of objects as denoted by certain names or words. They must be expressed in propositions, in which the perceived thing and its qualities are related as subject and predicate. Hence there can be no nirvikalpaka perception in i be sense of a cognition which is independent of verbal expression and free from association with words or general terms. All per reption is thus savikalpaka or determinate knou ledge of objects as qualified by the atiriivutes piedicated of them. The Cārvākas recognise only savihalpaka or determinate perception, in which we cognise objects as possessed of a number of perceptible qualities. For them, niriikalpaka perception is a hypothesis which cannot be verified by actual experience. It is something which cannot be perceived and is therefore unreal.
With this we pass from the extreme view of perception as blind sensation to what appears to us to be another extreme view of it as a fully developed judyment expressed in a predicative proposition. This is met by an intermediate position that distinguishes between two modes of perception, namely, the nirvikalpaha and the savikalpaka, of which the former is a simple apprehension or judgment of an object without words, and the latter a predicative
1 Parve'rtbāḥ sarvatha sarvadă sarvatra Dámadbeyānvitäh, etc., NVT, P 125,
Na ro'sti praty yo loke yah sibdãougarádfte, anuuddhamiva bānam sarvard Babdenu gamyate. (Bhaitpbari, Kärikä quoted in Siddhantacandrika, pp. 89.40.)
NYT., pp. 125.26.

Page #243

224
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
judgment of it in a word-proposition. This intermediate position seems to be a more reasonable view of perception. The pure sensation, to which the Buddhists reduce perception, is a psychological myth. Then the linguistic view of perception as always a fully developed propositional judgment is contradicted by such perceptions as ante-date language, e.g. the perceptions of children and higher animals. Even in the case of adults who know a language, an indefinite cognition of an object as given in sensation may very well precede a definite perception, in which it is recognised as a particular kind of thing. According to most of the Indian systems, the former is the nirvikalpaka and the latter the sankalpaka mode of perceptual knowledge. It is also generally held by them that there is no room for error in niriikalpaka perception, since it is a bare apprehension of the given object without any judgment of it as this or that. Hence it is always true. It is the savikalpaka perception of an object as a particular kind of thing that is hable to error, since our judgment here may not conform to the real nature of the object.1
2. Recognition (pratyabhijñā) as a mode of perception
Recognition may be understood in two senses In a wide sense, recognition means understanding the nature or character of a thing. In this sense, to recognise a thing is to know it as such-and-such, as when I know that the animal before me is a cow. It is generally admitted that reco,nition in this sense is an ordinary mode of perception, which is called savikalpaka and which relates a thing and its qualities by way of predication. In a narrow sense,
1 Jayanta Bhatta however, maintains that liability to error 18 common to both nirvikalpaka and sarıkalpaka 1erceptions The illusions of sense, like the perception of two moons, are instanced by him as cases of nirvikalpaka perception which are erroneous. (Vide Nyayamanjari, p. 97.)

Page #244

THREE MODES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
225
bowever, recognition means knowing a thing as that which was known before. To recognise thus means to cognise once again that which we are aware of having cognised before. Pratyabhijñā 18 recognition in this sense. It consists in knowing not only that a thing is such-and-such but that it is the same thing that we saw before. According to the Naiyāyikas, pratyabhujñā is the conscious reference of past and a present cognition to the same object. I see a a jar, recognise it as something that was perceived before, and say this is the same jar that I saw.' 1
With regard to the nature of pratyabhijñā or recognition the question is: Is it a simple or a complex cognition? Is it a case of pure perception or memory? According to the Buddhists, recognition is a mechanical compound of perception and menory. It cannot be called perception, because it relates to a past object with which there cannot be any sense-contact It cannot be called pure memory which refers only to the past, while recognition refers to a present object as the 'this.' Nor can we say that recognition is a synthesis or unitary product of perception and memory. Perception and memory arise respectively out of sensation and imagination, and are incapable of fusing into a single effect Admitting that recognition is a unitary product, what is the nature of its object? If the object be past, then recognition is not different from memory. It it be in the future, recognition becomes a form of imagination (sankalpa). The object cannot be a merely present fact, since in recognition the object is identified with something of our past experience. To say that the object of recognition exists in the past, present and future is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Buddhists conclude that pratyabhijñā is a dua cognition including both perception and memory
THP örväparayor vijfānayorekavıgaye pratisandhujñādam pratyabhijñānam, etc., NB., 31., 8.2. 2.
29~(1117B)

Page #245

226
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
which refer respectively to the two aspects of an object as' thin' and 'that,' or as present and past.
The Jainas take pratyabhijñā to mean recognition in the sense of both understanding the nature of an object and knowing that it was perceived before. To recognise a thing is to know that it has this or that property, or that it is the same as what was seen before. It is not true to say that pratyabhijñā is a dual cognition consisting of perception and memory. Although conditioned by perception and memory, it is a new kind of knowledge which cannot be resolved into them The testimony of introspection clearly tells us that pratyabhrjñā is a untary cognition and a distinct type of knou ledge What the Vaijāyikas call upamāna or comparison is, according to the Jainas, a form of pratyabhijñā as understood by them.”
According to the Naiyāyikas, pratyabhijñā con-ists in knowing that a thing now perceived is the same as what was perceived before. That pratyabhijñā or recognition, in the second sense, is a single psychosis appears clearly from the fact that it refers to one and the same object The cognitions of a jar and a cloth are two different psychoses, because they are evidently relatel to two different objectives. Recognition refers to only one thing and is therefore a simple and unitary cognition. The unique cause (karana) of the phenomenon of recognition is constituted by the senses and the effects of past experience. Recognition is brought about hy sense-impressions as modified by the effects of previous experience of an object. It gives us the knowledge of an object as existing in the present and as qualified hy its relation to the past.“ A thing's relation to past time
I NM, pp 448-49 1 Vide Prameyakamalamārtanda, pp 97-100
3 Bo'yam Devadatta ityatītavartamāpakālavıślatavīşayakam jāpar pratyabbijna, Mstabhāgini, p 25
4 Samskåraqabitamindriyamasyāḥ pratiteh karanam etc, NM , P 459 6 Atitakalavikiato vartamánakālāvacchiopascartha etasyāmavabbåsate, ibid.

Page #246

THREE MODES OF ORDINARY PERCEPTION
227
or a past experience is a character which qualifies its present existence. To know this is just to know that we have perceived it before, 1.e. to recognise it. Hence recognition 18 a special mode of savikalpaka perception. In all but the nirvikalpaka mode of perception there is the influence of past experience on our present knowledge. All savikalpaka or determinate perceptions of objects consist of certatın given or presentative elements and certain representative factors like ideas and images of similar objects experienced in the past. In an ordiniry savikalpaka perception the representative factors do not remain distinct but are assiinilated with the presentative elements to make up one percept In pratyabhijñā or recognition, the representative factor has the form of a definite recollection of some past experience of an object and modifies the present perception of it Still it is perception, since it is brought about by sense-object contact. Hence the Naiyāyı ka concludes that recognition is a kind of qualified perception, in which the present object is qualified by a distinct recollection of its past experience. The Mimāmsakas and the Advaita Vedāntins also hold that recognition is a kind of perception. The Mīmāmsakas, however, do not distinguish it from an ordinary savikalpaka perception. According to them, recognition is that kind of perception in which the object is determined by the name by which it is called, e.g. 'this is Devadatta.'? For the Advaitin, pratyabhijñā is a perception of the nirvikalpaka kind, since there is in it no predication of anything about the perceived object, but an assertion of its identity amidst changing conditions.
1 Porvåbhijñā navıgıstagrāhyamanamieyatim pratyabhijñādam, NM., P 461. 9 SD., p. 42 3 VP., Ch. 1.

Page #247

CHAPTER X
EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION (ALAUKIKA
PRATYAKSA)
i
Sāmānyulaksana or the perception of classes
In the ancient school of the Nyāya we do not meet with the distinction between lauhrka or ordinary and alaukika or extraordinary perception This distinction appears in the modern Vyāya beginning with Gangesa In laukika or ordinary perception there is a normal sense-contact with objects present to sense In alaukika perception, however, the objects are not actually present to sense, but are conveyed to it through an extraordinary medium In it there is a special kind of sense-object contact (alaukika-sannikarsa). Extraordinary perception is of three kinds, namely, sāmānyalakșana, jñānalah sana and yogaja.
Sāmānyalaksana is the perception of a whole class of objects through the generic property (sāmünya) perceived in any individual member of that class Thus when we perceive something as a pot we judge it as belonging to the class of pots. But to know that the thing belongs to the class of pots is also to know all other pots belonging to the same class. To say that this is a pot' is to know, by implication, what all other pots are. Hence in perceiving one thing as a pot we perceive all other pots. But the other pots are not present to sense in the same way in which one is present. How then can there be any perception of the other pots? If there is to be any perception of the other pots, they must be in some sort of contact (sannikarşa) with

Page #248

EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION
229
our sense. According to the Naiyāyikas, when we perceive one pot we perceive the universal 'potness' as its defining property. It is this perception of the universal 'potness' in the present pot that serves the purpose of contact (āsatti) between sense and all other pots. The knowledge of the universal (sāmānyajñāna) is here the medium of sense-object contact, by which we have a perception of all pots when one is perceived.' It may be objected here that sāmānyalaksana perception would make each of us omniscient If all the objects of a class are known with the perception of any of them, we should know all knowable objects when we perceive anything of the world as belonging to the class of knowables. The Naiyāyıkas reply that in sāmānyalaksana we perceive only one member of a class as an individual with its specific and generic properties, while the other members are known as possessing the generic property or the universal alone. Hence we cannot expect to have that full and detailed knowledge of all things, which is implied by omniscience
That sāmānyalaksana is a type of real percep-ion is supported by the Naiyāyikas on the following grounds. Without it we cannot explain the knowledge of universal propositions (vyāpti), wbich is presupposed in inference. How do we know that all smokes are related to fire ? We cannot know this if our perception be limited to particular smokes, for any number of particulars will not make up the universal. Hence we must admit that i hule perceiving one smoke as related to fire, we perceive all smokes, through the universal 'smokeness,' as so related. It cannot be said that it is unnecessary to assume that we perceive all smokes as related to fire, because we cannot even doubt if all smokes are related to fire or not unless all smokes are somehow presented to us when we do perceive one as related
I Asattırācrayonāru tu gamanyajñanamişyato, etc., BP. and SM , 64-65.

Page #249

230
is
،
to fire. Again without sāmānyalakṣaṇa we cannot explain negative judgments of perception like this cloth is not a pot,' 'this is not a cow,' etc. To say that this not a cow is to know the class of cows, 1.e all cows. This can be known only if when perceiving one cow we perceive all other cows through the universal cowness' as perceived in the present and perceived cow. Further, we cannot explain the voluntary effort to attain a pleasure without the help of sāmānyalakṣana. To strive consciously for a pleasure is somehow to know it as something to be, but not yet, experienced. But how can we know a pleasure which we have not yet had? This is possible if, when experiencing one pleasure, we know all pleasures through the universal pleasurableness' as belonging to the perceived pleasure.2
6
The Nyaya view of sāmānyalakṣana has been severely criticised and finally rejected by the Vedanta. According to it, samanya or the universal is a group of essential and common attributes belonging to a number of individuals. While the universal, as such, may be perceived along with the perception of an individual, it does not give us a perception of all the individuals possessing the same universal. Nor is there any valid ground to believe that in perceiving one individual we must perceive all other individuals of the same class. Thus in inference, say of fire from smoke, it is sufficiert if we know smokeness' as related to 'fireness.' It is not at all necessary for us to know that all smokes are related to fire. If all were known, then there would be no need for any inference in a particular case. Similarly, the negative judgment this is not a cow is quite possible if we only know what cowness' is and not what all cows are. So, too, there may be a conscious pursuit of some future pleasure if the pursuer knows it to be similar to his previously ex
6
"
"
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
"
1 TC., II, pp. 290 f., SM., 65. Ibid, pp. 283-90.

Page #250

EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION
231
perienced pleasures. For this, there need not be a sāmānyalakşaņa perception of all pleasures when one is actually perceived."
Now we are to observe that the reality of sāmānyalaksana as a type of perception depends on the presentative knowledge, if any, of a class of things If there is any such knowledge with regard to a whole class of things, we have to adınit sāmānyalakṣaṇa as a type of genuine perception. It is pointed out by the Naiyāyikas that any knowledge of the genus or the class does not justify us in believing in sāmānyalaksana. To know the general character of an atom is to bave only a conceptual knowledge (mānasabodha) of all atoms. Similarly, we may think of the class of pots in a dark room But that does not mean ibat we have a presentation of all pots through any sense for which we require the help of a sāmānyalaksana perception. It is only when in perceiving some individual object there is the presentation of the class of objects to which it belongs that we have to admit sāmānyalahşana to explain the presentative know ledge of that class. Hence the crucial question is this : Is there any presentative or direct knowledge of a class of things? The Naiyāyıkas contend that there is such a knowledge and seek to prove it on such grounds as we have explained above. Before we come to these we may state the following facts as more or less non-controversial.
When I know an individual as belonging to a certain class I know the universal or class-essence underlying it. To know the universal, however, is to know a character or group of characters which belongs to all the members of the class. So in knowing the universal I know all the individuals of that class-past, present and future-as participating in that universal. To know a horse as horse is to know horseness, and to know horseness is to know that it
i Vide Advantasıddhı, pp. 137 39.

Page #251

232
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
belongs to all horses, or to know all horses as possessing it. Again, a knowledge of the class seems to be implied in any generalisation. When from such particular cascs as ' A is mortal,' 'B is mortal,' 'C is mortal,' and so on, we conclude that all men are mortal,' we somehow know that mortality is true of the class of men. Now the question is How do we know anything about the whole of a class of things from the observation of some of its members ? In other words, how do we get general propositions from the observation of particular facts?
In Western logic this is explained by inductive inference.' The Naiyāyikas, however, bold that the knowledge of the class or the general proposition is given by perception of an extraordinary kid. The Vedāntins, on the other hand, argue that a generalisation is the statement of an invariable relation between universals and that it is known through the observation of their concomitance in one or more instances. Thus the general proposition all men are mortal,' or 'whatever is smoky is fiery' is the expression of an invariable relation between inanbod and mortality, or smokeness and fireness We have a knowledge of such general propositions when in any particular instance we find manhood to be related to mortality, or smokeness to fireness. The Vedānta view of generalisation thus corresponds to what is known as “ intuitive induction" in Western logic? and is explained as a “ process by means of which we apprehend a particular instance as exemplifying an abstract generalization,” as when 'from the apprehension of this red palch as being darker than that pink patch we may know immediately that every such red patch (2.2. redness) is darker than every such pink patch (z.e. pinkne-s).' It seems to me that while the abstract principles of mathematics may be taken as
1 Vide Mill, System of Logic; Stebbing, Logic in Practice, pp. 19-20 1 Vide Stebbing, Modern Introduction to Logic, p. 243.

Page #252

233
66
statements of necessary relations between certain universal concepts, all our empirical generalisations, including those here given, are truths about classes of things. In fact, such principles are what may be better called the necessary laws of thought lather than truths about any universal that has a denotative reference to a class of things. But, if we take the above cases as abstract generalisations exemplified in particular instances, we do not understand how they can be called, as some Western logicians have called them, intuitive induction If by such induction we are to mean the immediate apprehension of an axiom by means of its exemplification in a particular instance," we must admit that there is no room for any induction or inference or reasoning in it. If we have an immediate knowledge of anything, there is no need for any inference or reasoning with regard to it. A description of such knowledge as intuitive induction seems to me to be no less objectionable than a description of it as If, however, by "intuitive induction we mean the intuitive knowledge of a general principle through a particular instance, we should make it plain that such instance is not the basis of an inference with regard to the general principle. Rather, the general principle is apprehended along with the particular instance, although an explicit statement of it may be separated from the latter by an interval of time. To guard against a possible misunderstanding, therefore, it is better to characterise our knowledge of the general principles of logic and mathematics as intuition than to call it an intuitive induction."
66
..
(C
perceptual inference."
66
99 1
Our ordinary generalisations, however, are different
((
EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION
..
29
64
1 This is really admitted by Dr Stebbing although there seems to be some wavering at certain places. Cf "Thus we may be said to see the general principle in apprehending the particular case The intuition 18 of the form but it relates to the material exemplified in the form " (italics mine pp 96 97, 244)
(Modern Introduction to Logic,
30-(1117B)

Page #253

234
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
from the abstract principles of logic and mathematics. While the latter are truths about certain universal concepts, the former are truths about classes of things. When we lay down the proposition' all men are mortal,' or 'all smoky objects are fiery,' what we really want to convey is, not that there is a necessary relation between manhood and mortality, or between smokeness and fireness, but that mortality is true of the class of men, or that all smokes are connected with fire. Such propositions are empirical generalisations in the sense that these are assertions about whole classes of things, which are true, and that these are arrived at from observation of particular instances. But what is the nature of the process of knowledge that is involved when we generalıse from some 'to all'in a logically valid way ? Is it any kind of induction ? If so, it must be either perfect induction or “ Induction by Simple Enumeration." A perfect induction is one in which 'from the consideration of each of the members of a limited class we pass to a generalisation concerning all the members of that class. This is exemplified when on examining every boy of a class one says" all the boys of this class are intelligent." With regard to this Stebbing says: 'Mr. Jobnson has suggested the convenient name summary induction for this mode of inference, and that it is certainly a more appropriate name than “ perfect induction.". It seems to me that both names are equally inappropriate, and that for the same reason. A summary of a number of observed facts is not an induction at all. To call it an induction, be it perfect or summary, is to misjudge its epistemic character as inferential If on examining every patient in a sick-room a physician says “ all the patients in this room have got fever,'' then his judgment is not to be described as an induction or inference in any sense. It
1 Modern Introduction to Logic, p. 244.

Page #254

EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION
235
is but a memory-synthesis like the one we have when we understand the meaning of a sentence by a synthesis of its constituent words and their meanings as that is effected by memory. Hence our knowledge of a general proposition like 'all men are mortal' cannot be called a "perfect induction," even if it were possible for us to examine all men. But that is not possible as a matter of fact, since in man we have, not a limited, but an unlimited class that has "an infinite number of members."
Let us next consider whether an empirical generalisation like 'all men are mortal’ can be explained by “ Induction by Simple Enumeration.” “Generalisation from a number of examined instances which are not assumed to constitute all the instances of the given class is now usually known by the name Induction by Simple Enumeration."' 1 Such induction may, therefore, be put in this form : 'A, B, C are mortal, therefore all men are mortal.' But this is not a form of valid inference It obviously violates the general rule of inference that we must not go beyond the evidence, since in this inference the conclusion makes a statement about all men on the ground of what is observed in some men. Further, if it were a form of valid inference, it would validate any argument that might be put in this form, just as the forms of deduction guarantee the validity of a reasoning that may be put in any of them. While, however, we accept the argument 'all men are mortal, because A, B, C are mortal,' we do not acquiesce in the proposition ' all men are white, because A, B, C are white.' But why? If we examine the two arguments we shall see that the distinction between them is this. In the first, mortality which is found in some men is predicated of all men. In the second, whiteness which is observed in some men is predicated of all men. But then, we find A, B, C
1 Op. Cit., p 245.

Page #255

236
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
to be mortal, not because they are A, B, C, but because they are men. On the contrary, we know that A, B, C are wbite because they are A, B, C, and not simply because they are men as such. This means that while mortality is related to the essential nature of A, B, C, whiteness is not so related to them That individual men like A, B, C possess a certain essential common nature which is to be found in all men is borne out by the fact that we put together all men into the class 'man' and exclude all other animals from that class If, then, we find that mortality is related to the essential nature of some men, we know that all men must be mortal. That is, we know all men to be mortal when we know that mortality belongs to the essential nature of some men like A, B, C. But the first knowledge does not follow from the second To know mortality to be related to the essential nature of some men is just to know that it is related to all men or the class of men "What is related to the essential nature of some men must be related to all men' is a truth which is known directly or immediately, and for which we require no inference or reasoning. Hence our knowledge about the whole class is here an intuitive knowledge due to the knowledge of the class-essence or the universal It cannot be said that the knowledge of the class-essence oi the universal is got by inductive inference. The latter presupposes the former and so cannot be the ground of it. It seems to me that the universal, underlying a class of things is either directly known or never known. Observation of and experiment on things help us to find or discover the universal that is in them, but not to make or construct it out of them. And when by observation and experiment we find that the universal or class-essence is related to sometbing, we know at once that all the members of the class are related to that thing. According to the Naiyāyikas, it is the perception of the whole of a class as related to an

Page #256

EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION
231
attribute, which is simultaneous with the perception of the class-essence as so related. To distinguish it from ordinary sense perception they call it alaukika or extraordinary perception. If this be, as it very likely is, so, what is known as inductive inference may be reduced to the Naiyāyika's sāmānyalaksana perception in the sense of intuition of a general proposition through the knowledge of the class-, essence or the universal."
The Naiyāyikas further point out that without the perception of the whole of a class of things the problem of generalisation cannot even arise. If, when perceiving a particular smoke as related to fire, we ask are all smokes related to fire ? ' it is because the class of smokes
1 Some Western logicians fully realise the futility of all in luction as a form of valid inference. They do not, however, so clearly realise the implication of this futility. If there is no form of inductive inference, there can be no such thing as inductive inference in logic If this be admitted, as it should be, then the problem of generalisation takes a different forin A generalisation is no longer a matter of inference, but is to be explained by way of intuition That our knowledge of general priociples 18 intuitive will be admitted by many But very few, if any, will admit that an empirical generalisation also is a matter of 10 tuition based on the knowledge of class-essences or universals Some Western logicians, however, seem to tend towards this view when they try to establish a general proposition on the ground of the knowledge of "important resemblances" or "common properties" or "class characters" of thiogs Consider, for example, the following statements from Dr Stebbing 'Such classes 88 swans and men differ froin such classes as scarlet things and sour things in the fact that every member of the cla 33 swan, for instance, has several properties in common with all the other members, whereas the members of the class scarlet things bave few properties in common which are r'ot also possessed by things that are not scarlet Such classes as swans are calle i by Mill," natural kinds " Simple enumeration is not, then, to be regar led as a process simply of counting ; it is a counting of instances recognised as having certain properties in common The inference is depen. dent upon recoguition of resemblances' (Modern Introduction to Logic, pp 248.49 ) 'It is the fact that certain properties are found together that makes class names 80 useful If we know that there 18 a set of properties such that no member of the set 18 ever found without other members of the set, then we have a basis for inference It is because this appears to be the case with natural kinds that generalisation about natural kinds, such as crows, acids, men, seems to be plausible.' (Op. cit, p. 251 ) " As Mr Keynes points out Scientific method, indeed, 18 mainly devoted to discovering means of so heightening the known analogy that we may dispense as far as possible with the methods of pure induction '" (Op cit., p. 256 )

Page #257

238
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
is somehow presented to us. It cannot be said that we merely think of all smokes as a concept or general idea, and that there is no presentation or direct experience of them. We can think of such particular smokes as were previously experienced by us. But the idea of particular smokes always falls short of the class of smokes or all smokes. And there cannot be any idea of the class of smokes without a corresponding direct experience of it. It is only when, in perceiving one smoke as related to fire, all smokes are presented to us through the perception of the class-essence 'smokeness,' that we can legitimately ask the question Are all smokes or the class of smokes related to fire? Hence we conclude that sāmānyalaksana is a type of genuine perception It should, however, be borne in mind that we have not such a perception whenever we perceive any individual possessing a class-essence. It is only when the perception of the class-essence of an individual has a direct reference to the class of things to which it belongs that we have to admit a sāmānyalaksana perception of that class of things through the perception of the class-essence. In what cases other than those mentioned above there is such a reference is a matter of phenomenological observation wbich we need not discuss here
2. Jñānalakșana or acquired perception The second type of extraordinary perception is called jñānalakşaņa. It is the perception of an object which is in contact with sense through a previous knowledge of itself.' When on seeing something one says 'I see a piece of fragrant sandalwood,' he has an immediate knowledge or perception of its fragrance. This cannot be explained without the help of jñānalakṣaṇa. How can he perceive
Vìşayi yasya tasyazva vyāpāro pānalakşanah, BP., 65.

Page #258

EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION
239
the fragrant sandalwood, seen at a distance? Its fragrance is not then smelt by him and so does not come in contact with the sense of smell. Nor can there be any ordinary contact between smell and the sense of sight. Still he perceives it as fragrant sandalwood lying at a distance. Hence we are to say that there is some extraordinary contact between fragrance and the sense of sight. Here our past experience of fragrance in the sandalwood does the work of contact between sense and object. Our past knowledge of fragrance (saurabhajñāna) brings about the present percep tion of it, although it is not actually smelt by us. It cannot be said that the present perception of fragrapre as a parti cular is brought about by sāmānyalaksana cognition of the class of fragrants. The latter cognition supposes ar ordinary percep:ion of the genus of fragrance through sense contact which is not to be found in the present case. Thus we see that in both sāmānyalaksana and jñanalaksana perceptions sense-object contact is mediated by some kind of knowledge. In the former, the knowledge of a universal and, in the latter, some past experience is the medium of contact between sense and the perceived objects. But the distinction between them is this While in sāmānyalaksana the knowledge of the universal leads to the perception of the individuals in which it inheres (āśraya), in jñānalaksana, a past knowledge leads to the present perception of its own object (yadvisayakam jñānas tasyaiva pratyāsattıḥ).?
The Naiyāyikas explain illusions by the help of the theory of jñānalaksana perception. The illusory silver is perceived because it is presented through our previous knowledge of silver as seen at some other time and place. But the Vedānta objects to the Nyāya theory of jñānalakṣaṇa. It argues that to recognise jñānalakṣaṇa as a type of genuine
1 SM., 65. 3 Ibid.

Page #259

240
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
perception is to reduce ordinary inference to perception. If the fragrance of sandalwood be perceived because we have a previous knowledge of it as connected with sandalwood, then in the inference of fire from smoke, the fire may be said to be perceived since we have also a previous knowledge of it as related to smoke. There is nothing to distinguish between the two cases. In the one we have a perception of sandalwood and a previous knowledge of its relation to fragrance. In the other, we have a perception of smoke and a similar knowiedge of its relation to fire Hence if the fragrance be in extraordinary contact with sense and so perceived, there may be such an extraordinary perception of fire and, for the matter of that, of all objects of inference So the Vedānta holds that our knowledge of the fragrance of sandalwood, seen at a distance, is due to inference and not any extraordinary perception like the Naiyāyıka's jñānalaksana."
Now let us consider whether the knowledge of the fragrant sandal that is involved in the judgment " I see a fragrant sandalwood ” is really a case of perception as held by the Naiyāyıkas, or a case of inference as urged by the Vedāntins. Students of Western philosophy will readily recognise that such knowledge is of the same kind as what is called “complication" by some psychologists. The judgment " I see a fragrant sandalwood " is in fact equivalent to the judgment “ The sandalwood looks fragrant." And this is really another instance of what Stout, Ward and Wundt call “complication” and illustrate by such judgments as “ Ice looks cold," " The armour looks hard, smooth and cold.” 2 We may go further and say that the Naiyāyıka's jñānalakṣaṇa is similar to the visual perception
1 VP , Cb 1
2 Vide Stout, Manual of Psychology, p Psychology, pp 285-86.
102, Wundt, Human and Animal

Page #260

EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION
241
of distance, since the eyes have "no independent means of apprehending those relations of surfaces and lines which presuppose the third dimension.” If there can be a visual perception of distance, coldness, hardness, etc., there can also be a visual perception of fragrance. Hence the fundamental question to be discussed here is this : Can there be, and is there in fact, a visual perception (i) of distance, (ii) of coldness, bardness, etc., and (iii) of fragrance.
With regard to the first case (i), J. S. Mill' was strongly of opinion that the perception of distance by the eye is, in reality, an inference grounded on experience ; though in familiar cases it takes place so rapidly as to appear exactly on a par with those perceptions of sight which are really intuitive, our perceptions of colour.' Modern psychology, however, has outgrown this view and finds no difficulty in admitting that there is a visual perception of distance. With regard to the other cases, however, there is much difference of opinion among pbilosophers, both Indian and Western. While the Advaitins would bring all such cases under inference, the Naiyāyikas are in favour of treating them as genuine perceptions. Among modern thinkers some psychologists like Stout, Ward and Wundt take at least the second group of cases (11) as a form of perception, although, to distinguish it from ordinary perception, they give it the name of " complication.” Many other psychologists, however, would reduce them to some kind of rapid or implicit inference. As for the third case (iii), the Naiyāyikas are perhaps the only realists who would say that we have a visual perception of fragrance.
How are we to deal with the second and the third case ? We have to raise two questions, viz. (i) how are we to distinguish between perception and inference, and (ii) where are we to draw the line between perception and inference ?
1 System of Logic, p 4.
31—(1117B)

Page #261

242
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Perception may be defined as an immediate knowledge of objects or a knowledge of objects which is not brought about by any other knowledge. On the other hand, inference is the indirect knowledge of an object through the inediation of some sign which is known to be always related to it. In both perception and inference there is an interpretation of some datum. In both we may distinguish between a given and a suggested content. In perception there is a synthesis of some sensuous elements and some non-sensuous presentations But in perception these two elements are not kept distinct They fuse into one whole or form parts of one complex object. There is no transition of consciousness from the one to the other. We do not think of the one apart from and independently of the other. The one immediately suggests the other and gives rise to the cognition of an object as one whole, of which they are the parts. Thus in an adult's visual perception of a rose, the sensory element, namely, its colour, immediately presents its other qualities, namely, its touch and smell, and the sensed and the presented elements blend into the perception of the rose.
Inference is distinguished from perception by the fact that it gives us a knowledge of some fact through the mediation of some other fact on the basis of a uniform relation between them. Of these two facts the second suggests the first through a knowledge of their uniform connection with each other. But the suggestive fact and the suggested fact remain distinct and we are conscious of a transition of thought from the one to the other. These do not fuse into one whole as they do in perception. Rather, they stand out as two wholes or two distinct facts, either of which is thought of independently of the other. Thus in the inference of fire from smoke my mind passes from one thing to another which is distinct from it and is thought of independently of it. Hence the distinction

Page #262

EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION
243
between perception and inference is briefly this : Perception is the integral immediate consciousness of an object. Inference is a multiple mediated consciousness of an object which may be expressed as a this-therefore-that consciousness.
In view of the above distinction between perception and inference we cannot admit the Advaitin's contention that to recognise jñānalaksaņa as a form of perception is to obliterate the distinction between perception and inference. When we pass such judgments as 'the rose looks soft,' 'the stone looks hard,' we do not pass from the colour of the rose or the stone to its tactual quality. Likewise, when we say 'ice looks cold,' or 'the sandal looks fragrant,' there is no transition of thought from ice to coldness, or from the sandal to its fragrance. We do not say “ because ice, therefore cold,” or because sandal, therefore fragrant.' On the other hand, coldness or fragrance is a part of the presentation of the ice or the sandal. What we say is : “I see the cold ice or the fragrant sandal,” just as we say “we see the distant hill.” In the inference of fire from smoke, however, there is a transition of our thought from smoke to fire as two distinct objects. We never say “I see the fiery smoke." In fact, the fire is here only thought of by us and not presented to us. To recognise jñānalakṣaṇa, therefore, as a form of perception is not to ignore the fundamental distinction between perception and inference.
It may indeed be contended here that while in the visual perception of a rose or a stone or a block of ice, there is a presentation of some tactual quality, there is no such presentation of fragrance in the visual perception of sandalwood. To this we are to say that if the eye can present a tactual quality like softness or hardness or coldness wbich it is not fitted, by nature, to perceive, there is no inherent impossibility in the eye being made competent to perceive

Page #263

244 NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE smell. We are, therefore, to consider under what condition or conditions perception takes place. When we have discovered these conditions, we shall see that, although logically perception and inference are two fundamentally distinct ways of knowing, yet from the psychological standpoint, it is not possible to draw the line between them.
As we have already said, perception is constituted by the union of certain sensuous elements with certain nonsensuous presentations into one whole. The sensuous elements are the given and the non-sensuous elements are presented by the given. As a general rule, perception occurs when there is either a natural or a habitual association between the sensuous and the non-sensuous elements of perception, so that the one immediately calls up the other and the two are fused into one whole of presentation of some object. By' natural association 'I mean an association, in our minds, of one sense quality with such other sense qualıties as are, by nature, connected with it It follows naturally from this that such associations will be most frequently experienced by us and therefore ingrained in our minds. The question as to how many senses and sense qualities there are is not relevant for our present purpose We adopt here the universally accepted view that there are five senses and five corresponding sense qualities, namely, smell, taste, colour, touch and sound. Taking these sense qualities in the order in which they have been mentioned here, we may say that there is a natural connection of that which precedes to those which succeed it, but not vice versa Thus a smelling object bas generally some taste, colour, touch and sound. But a sounding object like space or air has no colour, taste and smell. So also, to smell a thing is generally to see and touch it. But to see a thing is not to taste or smell it so generally. Hence it is that a smell or taste sensation naturally calls up the colour and touch of an object.
On the other hand, a' habitual association is the asso

Page #264

EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION
245
ciation, in our minds, of one sense quality with those which are not, by nature, connected with it. Hence it is less frequently experienced by us and is, in many cases, looser than a natural association. Still when a habitual association between them is once formed in our minds, one sense quality immediately calls up others and all of them are combined into the perception of an object. Thus sound is not naturally connected with touch as there is sound in space but no touch. So also, touch has no natural relation to colour, as there is touch in the air but 10 colour. Similarly, there is no natural connection of colour with taste and smell Thus there is colour in light but no taste and smell. Hence it is that an association of colour with smell is looser than that of smell with colour, with which it is naturally connected Wbile the mere smell of kerosene immediately suggests its colour, the latter by itself hardly suggests the former. But by repeated experiences of their uniform connection with one another a habitual association between them may be established in our minds, and one sense quality may present another which is not naturally connected with it. It is in this way that the sound of a bell presents its tactual and visual qualities and we have the auditory perception of a bell, just as the sight of the bell presents its tactual and auditory qualities and we have a visual perception of it. Thus we say “I bear the bell," just as we say “ I see the bell."
The two alternative conditions of perception, viz. a natural and a habitual association between its two elements, are realised in the life of an individual through repeated experiences of the objects of the world. When we speak of
1 This is also admitted by some Western thuo kers Cf Stout, Manual of Psychology, pp 102-03 'In the qualification of actual touch experience by revived visual experience we find the union of the constituents of the complex much looser.' Cfalso Bosanquet, The Essentials of Logic, p 31. The judginent of sight perception, " That (which I see) is & cab," though its terms are more inextricably interwoven, has just the same elements in it as the judgment of sound perception, " That (which I hear) 18 a cab.",

Page #265

246
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
a natural association between them we do not mean that it is congenital, so that the association is formed in the mind of every individual from his or her birth. If it were so. every baby should have as good perceptions as any grown-up person. All that we mean by a natural association is that it bas a basis in the constitution of things and that it is most frequently met with in the experiences of an individual. If, therefore, both natural and habitual associations are produced by repeated experiences, tio important consequences would follow : (1) It follows that the knowledge of the same object may, under the same objective conditions, be a matter of perception or inference for different individuals, according as there is or is not a natural or a habitual association as the basis of their knowledge (2) It follows that, under the same objective conditions, the knowledge of the same object may at first be a matter of inference and subsequently of perception, and vice versa, for one and the same individual. The knowledge of a rose from its sight is a perception for the person in whom the repeated experiences of roses have established a natural or a habitual association between its colour and touch and smell. The knowledge of the same rose, under the same external conditions, will be an inference for another person when, for want of repeated experiences, its colour does not immediately call up its touch and smell, but suggests them as distinct ideas or images on the ground of its similarity to the colour of roses. For illustration we may refer to the difference between our knowledge of a new variety of the rose and that of the gardener who presents it to us. An armour may look hard, smooth and cold to an adult who is familiar with it. A child may just imagine it to have these or very different tactual qualities. The fragrance of sandalwood may be directly known from its sight by those who are closely acquainted with it, but for others its visual appearance may only be a sign from which to infer its fragrance. When I go to a foreign country I can barely infer

Page #266

the distance and size of an object from its visual appearance, but a native of the country who is familiar with the environment has a perception of these from the same position, which is essentially visual. If, however, I stay there for some months and become familiar with the environment, I may have a visual perception of the same facts under the same objective conditions. For the illustration of the converse case, i e. the relapse of perception into inference, we may refer to (i) any case of senility in wbich a person has but a doubtful inferential knowledge of things and persons under the same objective conditions under which he or she once used to perceive them, and (c) the common though curious instance of forgetfulness in which we fail to recognise an old acquaintance whom we have not seen for many years and try to infer his identity by putting certain questions to him and judging their answers.
The foregoing discussion leads us to the conclusion that there cannot be an absolute line of demarcation between perception and inference. We cannot say that under the same objective conditions the knowledge of an object must always be a perception for every individual and that it can never be otherwise. Nor can we aver that such knowledge must always be an inference for all individuals and that it can never be a perception for any. On the contrary, we are to admit that it may be either, for different individuals, or for the same individual at different stages of his or her life, according to his or her or their mental equipment.
In view of the answers which we have given to the two questions stated above we are justified in saying that, under certain conditions, it is quite possible that there may be a presentation of fragrance in relation to the activity of the visual sense. When these conditions are fulfilled, there is nothing to prevent the eye from giving us an immediate knowledge of fragrance. And that is why of all people the Vedāntins must admit that there may be a visual perception

Page #267


Page #268

BOOK III
THE THEORY OF INFERENCE
(ANUMĀNAPRAMĀŅA)

Page #269


Page #270

CHAPTER XI
THE NATURE OF INFERENCE
1. Definition of Anumāna or Inference Anumāna literally means such knowledge as follows some other knowledge. It is the knowledge of an object due to a previous knowledge of some sign or mark (linga). The previous knowledge is the knowledge of the linga or mark as having a universa relation with the sādhya or major term and as being present in the pakṣa or minor term. Hence anumāna bar been defined in the Nyāya system as the knowledge of ar object, not by direct observation, but by means of the knowledge of a linga or sign and that of its universal relatior (vyāpti) with the inferred object.
The object of inference is some fact which follows from some other fact because of a universal relation between the two. With regard to something of our experience we want to know by means of anumāna that which may not be perceived but is indicated by what is perceived in it. Anumāna as a pramāņa is therefore the source of our knowing through the medium of a sign or mark that a thing has a certain character. It leads to the knowledge of a thing as possessing a character, say fire, because of its having another character, smoke, which we apprehend and which we know to be always connected with it. Thus in anumāna we arrive at the knowledge of an object through the medium of two acts of knowledge or propositions.
1 Miteos lingens lingino'rthagya pascanmånamazumādam, NB,1 1 3 i Vyaptivisişta-pakşadbarmatājñānaianyam, etc., TC, II, p 2. 8 NM., p. 109.

Page #271

254
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
All systems of Indian philosophy agree in holding that anumāna is a process of arriving at truth not by direct observation but by means of the knowledge of vyāpti or a universal relation between two things. The Nyāya view is stated already. According to the Vaiseșikas, anumāna is the knowledge derived from the perception of a linga or sign which is uniformly connected with something else, such as cause, effect, co-effects and correlative terms. The Buddhists take anumāna to consist in the perception of that which is known to be inseparably connected with another thing Such inseparable connection between two things is due either to the law of causality or the principle of essential identity (tadutpatti and tādātmya) ? So also the Jainas hold that anumāna is the method of knowing an unperceived object through the perception of a sign and the recollection of its invariable concomitance with that object.8 The Sāmkhya and the Yoga, the Mimāınsā and the Vedānta system too define anumūna as the knowledge of one term of a relation, which is not perceived, through the knowledge of the other term which is perceived and is explicitly understood as invariably related to the first term. In anumāna what is perceived leads us on to the knowledge of wbat is inferred through the knowledge of a universal relation (vyāpti) between the two
2. Distinction between perception and inference
Perception and inference are equally valid methods of buman knowledge (pramāna). But wbile perception is independent of any previous knowledge, inference depends on previous perception | Inference is sometimes defined as
1 PS, pp 996 2 Nyāyabındu, Chapter II 3 Prameyakamalamartanda, p. 101 4 TKD ,5, VB., 1 7; SD & SC, p 60, VP , Ch. II.

Page #272

NATURE OF INFERENCE
255 knowledge which is preceded by perception.” It depends on perception for the knowledge of the linga or the middle term as subsisting in the pakṣa or the minor term. It depends on perception also for the knowledge of vyāptı or the universal relation between the middle and major terms of inference. It is only when we have observed two things to be always related that from the perception of the one we infer the existence of the other. Thus inference 18 knowledge derived from some other knowledge, while perception is not derived from any other knowledge. That is, inference is inediate and perception immediate knowledge of an object.
All perception is essentially of one kind, namely, that it is a knowledge of what is given But there are different kinds of inferences based on different kinds of vyāpti or universal relation. Perception is generally due to some contact of our sense-organs with the objects perceived by us. It gives us knowledge of only those objects which lie within the range of the senses. Hence it is limited to the here and the now, 1.e. to present objects Inference, on the other hand, is due to the knowledge of vyāptı or universal relations among objects. It is by means of such universal principles that inference gives us a knowledge of objects beyond the reach of our senses. It extends our knowledge from the present to the past, distant and future. Ordinarily we perceive objects that are in actual contact with our senses, but we infer those that are not open to sense perception. Perception usually excludes inference but not vice versa. Wbat is perceived or directly known does not ordinarily require to be known indirectly by means of inference. Inference functions with regard to neither what is absolutely unknown nor what is definitely known. It relates to objects that are
1 N8,1 16 2 NB., 1. 1 5 3 NV, 21 31.

Page #273

256
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
doubtful, i.e. objects which we bave reasons to believe in, but which are not yet established facts. Hence inferences generally require confirmation by means of perception.'
3. The Constituents of Inference
From the definition of inference (anumāna) it will appear that there must not be less than three propositions and more than three terms in any inference in inference we arrive at the knowledge of some un perceived character of a thing through the knowledge of some linga or sign in it and that of vyāpti or a universal relation between the sign and the inferred character. There is first the knowledge of what is called the linga or mark in relation to the pakşa or the subject of inference This is generally a perceptual judgment relating the linga or middle term with the pakşa or minor term of inference (lingadarśana), as when I see that the bill is smoky, and infer that it is fiery. It is a proposition in which the linga is predicated of the pakşa and thus corresponds to the minor premise of a syllogism. Secondly, inference requires the knowledge of vyāptı or a universal relation between the linga and the sādhya, or the middle and major terms This knowledge of the linga or middle term as always related to the sādhya or major term is the result of our previous experience of their relation to each other. Hence it is a memory-judgment in which we think of the linga as invariably connected with the sādhya (vyāptismaraņa), e.g. 'all smoky objects are fiery.' Thirdly, we have the inferential knowledge (anumiti) as resulting from the previous knowledge of the linga and that of its
1 Agnordpstatvena sandeh asyåpudayāt. Sardigdbaścărtho 'numiyate, TB., p. 8
? It should be observed here tbat the frst step of inference may be either the perception of the middle term or a proposition stating that the middle term is related to something

Page #274

NATURE OF INFERENCE
257
universal relation (vyāpti) with the sādhya. It is a proposition which relates the pakṣa or minor term with the sādhya or major term, e.g. the hill is fiery.' The inferential cognition (anumiti) is a proposition which follows from the first two propositions and so corresponds to the conclusion of the syllogism.'
Corresponding to the minor, major and middle term of the syllogism, inference in Indian logic contains three terms, namely, paksa, sādhya and hetu. The paksa is the subject under consideration in the course of the inferential reasoning Every inference proceeds with regard to some individual or class of individuals about which we want to prove something 'Hence the paksa is that individual or class about which we want to establish something or predicate an attribute which is suspected but not definitely known to be present in it.? That which possesses the inferable character is called paksa or minor term of inference, e g. 'the bill' when we want to prove that it is fiery. In relation to the paksa or minor terin in any inference, a sapakṣa or homogeneous instance is that which is decisively proved to be related to the inferable character, e.g. 'the hearth' in relation to the bill.'s Contrariwise, a vipaksa or heterogeneous instance is that which is definitely known to be characterised by the absence of the infer able character, e.g.' water' as marked by the absence of 'fire.'4
While the paksa is the subject, the sādhya is the object of inference. It is that which we want to know or prove by means of any inference. The sādhya is that character of the pakṣa or minor term which is not perceived by us,
Cf Näpupalabdhe na nirnīte'rthe
1 SM , 66 67, NM , p. 109.
3 Samdigdhasādbyavān pakan b, Ts., 44 nyāyaḥ pravartate, kintu samsayite, NB., 1.11
3 Nascitasādhyavan sapaksab, TS., 44. 4 Nibcitasādhyābhāvavân vipaksah, Ibid.
33—(1117 B)

Page #275

258
NYAYA TAEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
but indicated by some sign present in it. In short, it is the inferable character of the minor term and thus corresponds roughly to the major term of the syllogism. It is that character which is predicated of the minor term in the resulting inferential knowledge or the conclusion of the syllogism.
With regard to the exact nature of the sādhya there is some difference of opinion among the different systems of Indian philosophy. According to the Advaita Vedānta, what is inferred is the unperceived character of the subject or minor term of inference. In the inferential knowledge that the hill is fiery,' it is the fire that is inferred and not the bill' which is but perceived. The Buddhists contend that 'the fire cannot be the object of inference from smoke. We know it just when we know the smoke as related to fire. So there remains nothing more to be inferred. Nor do we inter the relation between the fire' and 'the hill.' We cannot speak of a relation unless there are two things to be related. But in inference we have only one thing, namely, the hill, since the fire is not perceived. The hill being perceived cannot be said to be the object of inference. What is therefore inferred is the hill as possessed of fire.'? The Mimāmsakas also hold that what we infer is the subject or minor term as related to the predicate or the major term.? The Naiyāyikas however maintain that the object of inference may be different in different cases. What is inferred may be either the subject or minor term as related to the major term, or the major term as related to the minor, or the middle term taken as a particular individual and related to the major term. 3 When we perceive smoke in a hill, what we know by inference 18
1 Pramānasamuccaya, Chapter II Vede also NVT., pp 179-80.
1 Tasmåt dharmapigistasya dharniņah syāt prameyatā, Slokuvårttıka, Chapter or Inference. Agaivisistastu parvato ...... anúmeyah, SD, p 63
NB. and NV, 1.1.36,

Page #276

NATURE OF INFERENCE
259
either the hill as related to fire,' or 'fire as related to the hill.' But when the site of the smoke cannot be perceived, what we infer is that the perceived individual smoke is related to fire. 1
The third term of inference is called the linga or sign because it serves to indicate that which we do not perceive. It is also called the hetu or sādhana in so far as it is the ground of our knowledge of the sādhya or what is inferred. Like the middle term of a syllogism, it must occur at least twice in the course of an inference. It is found once in relition to the pakṣa or minor term and then in relation to the sādhya or the major term. It is through a universal relation between the hetu and the sādhya, or the middle and major terms that the paksa or minor term, which is related to the middle, becomes connected with the sūdhya or major term ? That is, the paksa is related to the sādhya through their common relation to the hetu or middle term. There are five characteristics of the middle term ? The first is paksadharmatā, or its being a character of the paksa. The middle term must be related to the minor term, e.g. the hill is smoky (S is M). The second is sapakşasattva or its presence in all homogeneous instances in which the major exists. The middle must be distributively related to the major, cg. all smoky objects are fiery (M is P). The third is vipaksāsattva, or its absence in all heterogeneous instances in which the major is absent, e.g. whatever is not fiery is not smoky (No not-P is M) The fourth is abādhıtavisayatva, or the uncontradictedness of its object. The middle term must not aim at establishing such absurd and contradictory objects as the coolness of fire or the squareness of a circle. The fifth character of the middle is asatpratipaksatva, or the absence of counteracting reasons
I Vide NVT, p 182 2 Vyiptıbalenārthagamnakan lingam, TB, p 7. 3 Vide NM, p 110, NSV ,124

Page #277

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
leading to a contradictory conclusion. These five characteristics, or at least four of them, must be found in the middle term of a valid inference If not, there will be fallacies. We shall have to consider these points more fully later on.
260

Page #278

CHAPTER XII THE GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
1.
The logical ground of vyāptı or universal relation
In inference our knowledge of the sādhya or major term as related to the paksa or minor term depends on the knowledge of ryāptı between the middle and major terms. It is on the ground of vyāptı or a universal relation that the middle term leads to the knowledge of the inferred object (vyāptıbalenārthagamakain lingam). Every inference is thus logically dependent on the knowledge of vyāpti. Hence the questions that we have to consider here are : (i) What is vyāptı? and (12) bow is it known?
With regard to the first question we have to say that vyāpti literally means the state of pervasion or permeation. It thus implies a correlation between two facts, of which one is pervaded (vyāpya) and the other pervades (vyāpaka). A fact is said to pervade another when it always accompanies the other. Contrarı wise, a fact is said to be pervaded by another when it is always accompanied by the other. It follows from this that the vyāpaka or the pervader is present in all the places in which the vyāpya or the pervaded is present. In this sense smoke is pervaded by fire, since all smoky objects are also fiery. But while all smoky objects are fiery, all fiery objects are not smoky, e.g. the red-hot iron ball. Similarly, all men are mortal, but all mortals are not men, c.g. bırds and beasts. A vyāpti between terms of unequal extension, such as smoke and fire, men and mortals, is called asamavyāptı or visamavuāpti. It is a relation of non-equipollent concomitance
tu
Bus

Page #279

262
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
between two terms, from one of which we may infer the other, but not vice versa. Thus we may infer fire from smoke, but not smoke from fire. As distinguished from this, a vyāpti between two terms of equal extension is called samavyāpti or equipollent concomitance. Here the vyāpti holds between two terms which are co-extensive, so that we may infer either of them from the other. Thus there is a samavyāptı between cause and effect, substance and attribute. We may infer the cause from the effect, the substance from the attribute, or vice versa Thus whatever is produced is non-eternal, and whatever is non-eternal is produced.
It will appear from the above that visamavyāpti is a universal proposition, of which only the subject is distributed, 1.e. taken in its entire extension A samavyāptı, on the other hand, is a universal proposition which distributes both the subject and the predicate. They would thus correspond respectively to the universal affirmative and universal negative propositions in Western logic. It is to be noted however that there are some universal affirmative propositions wbich distribute both their subject and predicate Thus
whatever is produced is non-eternal,' 'men are rational animals' are cases of samavyāptı or universal affirmative propositions in which both the subject and the predicate are distributed.
For any inference the minimum condition is some kind of vyāptı between the middle and major terms. It does not matter whether the vyāpti is sama or visama, i.e. equipollent or non-equipollent. This satisfies the fundamental law of syllogistic inference that one of the premises must be universal. Now the vyāpti between the middle and major terms means generally a relation of coexistence (sāhacarya) between the two, e.g. wherever there is smoke there is fire. Every case of coexistence, however, is not a
1 Yatra dhūmastatrāgnirti sāhacaryanıyamo vyåpth, T8, p 45

Page #280

GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
263
WARM
NORN
case of vyāpti. Thus all the children of a certain father may be dark. But this does not mean that there is vyāpti or a universal relation between a particular parentage and dark complexion. In many instances fire may coexist with smoke. Still there is no vyāpti or universal relation between fire and smoke, since there may be fire without smoke. The reason is that in such cases the relation of coexistence is dependent on certain conditions (upādhi) other than the terms related. Thus the darkness of complexion is determined by certain physiological conditions, and the presence of smoke in fire is conditioned by moisture in the fuel. Hence we are to say that vyāpti is that relation of coexistence between the middle and major terms which is independent of all conditions (upādhi). It is an invariable and unconditional relation (niyata anaupādhika sambandha) of concomitance between the middle and major terms. This means that there is no exception to the relation of concomitance between the two, no instance in which the middle is present without the major. Hence vyāpti as the logical condition of inference may be defined either positively or negatively. Positively speaking, vyāptı 18 the uniform existence of the middle term in the same locus with the major term such that the major term is not absent in any locus in which the middle term exists. In the terminology of the Navya Nyāya, vyāpti is such a relation of coexistence between the middle and major terms that the major is not a counter-entity to any negation abiding in the middle, i.e. it is none of those things which are absent in the middle term. 2 Vyāpti has been negatively defined as the nonexistence of the middle term in all the places in which the major term does not exist. 3 That there 18 vyāpti between
1 Vide TB , PP 7-8
2 Athavă hetumannışthavirahāpratıyoginā sādhyena betoraikidhikaraṇyam vyāptirucyate, BP, 69Vade also TC, IT, P 100. Cf VP , Ch II.
3 Vyaptıḥ sādhyavadanyasmingagatibandha, etc., BP., 68,

Page #281

264
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
the middle and major terms means that the middle (M) never is, if the major (P) is not. These two definitions of vyāpti give us two universal propositions, one positive and the other negative, e g. all cases of smoke are cases of fire,' and 'no case of not-fire is a case of smoke' (All M 18 P, and No not-P is M). This means that the vyāptı or universal proposition which is the ground of inference may be either affirmative (anvayı) or negative (vyatıreki) Hence vyāpti is said to be of two kinds, namely, anvaya or affirmative and vyatıreka or negative While in anvuya-vyāpti or the universal affirmative proposition the middle term is vyāpya or subject and the major is vyāpaka or predicate, in vyatıreka-vyāptı or the universal negative proposition the contradictory of the vyāpakı or predicate becomes vyāpya or îsubject and the contradictory of the vyāpya or subject becomes the vyāpakr or predicate 1 Thus 'whatever is smoky is fiery,' or 'All M is P' is an anvaya-vyāptı, of which the corresponding vyatıreka-vyāptı will be whatever is not-frey is not-smoky,' or 'All not-P is not-M.' The logical ground of inference then is vyāpti in the sense of a universal proposition which may be either affirmative or negative.
So much for the definitions of vyāptı? 01 the universal relation between the middle and major terms of inference. The next question is: How is vyāptı known? How do we pass from partiular cases of the relation between smoke and fire to the universal proposition 'all cise: of smoke are cases of fire'? This is the problem of induction, which is not separately created in Indian logic, but is made a part
1 Vide TB, P 9
3 Gangesa in bis Tattvacıntāmanı discusses at length the definitions of vyaptı, Jum'ering twenty in all of thes; he rejects all but one as either too wide or tjo larrow or otherwise objectionable The last definition of vyāptı, accepted by him as ralid, has been noted above, along with another to cover both the cases of anvaya and yatıreka oyāptı or the universal affirmative and the universal negative proposition,

Page #282

GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
265
of the general theory of inference. Indian systems of philosophy take inference as a process of reasoning which 18 not only formally valid but also materially true. Hence in an inference of any kind the question arises : How do we get the universal proposition (vyāpti), on which inference depends?
The Cārvākas, who are radical empiricists, contend that all knowledge is limited to particulars. We cannot pass from the knowledge of particular cases of the relation between two objects to that of all possible cases. There is no successful method of generalisation from particulars. Perception, whuch is the only source of human knowlege, does not help us to establish a universal proposition. It is limited to present facts and cannot tell us anything about the pist, distant and future. Hence from perception we know what is true of a thing or a limited number of things. That is, perception gives us particular, but no universal propositions. If perception cannot give us a knowledge of vyāptı or universal proposition, inference and the other alleged sources of knowledge certainly cannot do so. All sources of knowledge except perception depend on vyāptı or a universal relation between two things and cannot, therefore, be made the ground of our knowledge of it. To take them as such is to reason in a vicious circle.'
The Buddhists meet the Cārvāka contention in two ways. First, they point out that the Cārvākas' refutation of inference is itself a process of reasoning which, on their own admission, depends on some kind of vyāpti. As such, it practically amounts to a refutation of their own position, namely, that no process of reasoning including inference is valid. As a matter of fact, the Cārvākas employ the method of inference more than once in their philosophy. For example, it is by means of inference that they can know
1 Vide Sarvadarśanasamgraha, Chapter I.
34—(1117 B)

Page #283

266
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
that other people differ from them with regard to the question of inference, or that other sources of knowledge are as fallacious as inference, or that God, soul, etc., do not exist because they are not perceived."
Next the Buddhists proceed to show how vyāpti or a universal proposition may be based on the principles of causality and essential identity (tādātnya and tadutpattı). ? When two things are related as cause and effect, they are always and everywhere related to each other There can be no exception to their relation, since the cause cannot te separated from its effect, vor the effect from its cause. To say that there is no necessary relation between the cause and the effect, or that there may be an effect without its cause is not admissible, because such a hypothesis involves self-contradiction and makes life impossible. Hence we are to take the law of causality as a universal law. To determine whether the relation between two objects is causal or not we are to apply the test of pañcakāranī According to it, there are five steps in the determination of a causal relation First, the effect is not perceived before it is produced. This ineans that the effect is an event abich appears after another phenomenon that is its cause The causal phenomenon is thus antecedent to the effectphenomenon. Secondly, the cause is perceived, ie. there is a change in the existing order of things. Thirdly, the effect-phenomenon appears in immediate succession. Fourthly, the cause is made to disappear. Fifthly, the effect disappears in immediate succession. The Buddhist method of determining the causal relation corresponds to Mill's method of difference in its double application. If, all other conditions remaining the same, the appearance of one phenomenon 18 immediately followed by that of another,
1 Op.cit , Ch IT ? Op cit , Ch II; Nyayabındu, Cb II
Karyasyot patteh pråganapalambbaḥ etc , Sarvadarśanasarngraha, Cb II.

Page #284

GHOUNDS OF INFERENCE
267
and its disappearance is immediately followed by the disappearance of the other, then the two are related as cause and effect. When once we know them to be related as cause and effect, we may very well take them as universally related. Similarly, the principle of essential indentity (tādātmya) is another ground on which we may base a universal proposition. A thing is always related to what is identical with it. Identity does not mean a mere repetition of the same thing, e.g. 'A is A' Nor can there be any identity between things that are absolutely different, e.g. a horse and a cow By identity we mean the relation between two different thinys that coexist in the same locus (sāmīnādhıkaranyam). Thus there is identity between the genus and the species coming under it, or the class and the individuals included in it A simšapā is identical with a tree, in so far as the two refer to the same object. From this we know that all simšapās are trees, since śimśapās will cease to be simsapās, if they are not trees? Thus vyāptı or a universal proposition is to be based on the necessary principles of causality and identity Experience, or observation and non-observation cannot be the sure ground of generalisation. Empirical knowledge, however well lounded, can never be necessary and universal. There is an element of doubt and uncertainty in all empirical generalisations Causality and identity bemg the presuppositions of all experience are necessary and universal truths, to which all sense experience must conform. Hence any generalisation based on either of these two principles is universally valid and not open to any doubt.
The Naiyāyıkas criticise and reject the Bauddha method of ascertaining vyāpti on the following grounds. Accordmg to the Buddhists, vyāptı or å universal relation between the middle and major terras is to be deduced from the relation of
1 Sarvadarśanasamgraha and Nyāyabindu, ibid

Page #285

268
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
causality or identity between the two. This, however, is not true. There are many cases of vyāpti or universal relation which is independent of the notions of causality and identity. Thus there is a universal relation of succession between day and night, or between the different seasons, or between sunset and the appearance of stars Similarly, we find a universal relation of coexistence between a certain substance and its attributes, or between a certain colour and a certain taste. Here we have vyāpti or a universal relation between terms which are neither cause and effect nor identical with one another, but inom one of which we can validly infer the other. Further, the relation of identity between two things can bardly be treated as a ground of inference from the one to the other. If the two things be identical, then both must be equally perceived or inferred. The tree being identical with the simsapā must be perceived just when we perceive the latter, and so need not be inferred. For the same reason, if we infer the tree from the simsapā and say " all simšapās are trees,"' we should be able to infer the simsapā from the tree and say "all trees are simšapās” The two things being identical, we should be able to infer either of them from the other. Nor again does the abstract principle of causality help us to draw inferences in particular cases Granting that there is a universal and an unconditional relation between the cause and effect, it is extremely difficult for us to determine whether the relation between two particular things is causal or not. The test of pañcakāraṇī recommended by the Buddhists is not an absolute guarantee for there being a causal relation between two things. That test applies when all the conditions of a certain relation remain the same. But it is only with regard to the known or the perceptible conditions that we may be sure whether they remain the same or not. With regard to the imperceptible conditions we cannot be absolutely certain that no change in these corresponds to a change in the relation between two

Page #286

GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
269
things. Thus in the relation of fire to smoke it is just possible that an invisible agent (piśāca) always intervenes between the two and produces the smoke. Moreover, there is such a thing as a "plurality of causes," which makes it hazardous to infer any particular cause for any single effect. Thus we may admit that fire is the cause of smoke in a particular case, and yet say that it is not a cause in other cases, or that there are other causes producing smoke in other instances. Hence it is not always safe to infer a particular cause from an effect as such.
According to the Vedānta, 2 vyāpti or a universal proposition is the result of an induction by simple enumeration. It rests on the uncontradicted experience of agreement in presence between two things. When we find that two things go together and that there is no exception to their relation, we may take them as universally related. The Nyāya agrees with the Vedānta in holding that vyāpti is established by means of uncontradicted experience of the relation between two things It is based, not on any a priori principle like causality oi identity, but on the uniform experience of concomitance between two objects The Nyāya, however, goes further than the Vedānta and supplements the uncontradicted observation of agreement in presence by that of agreement in absence and tarka or indirect proof.' The Nyāya method of induction or generalisation may be analysed into the following steps. First we observe that there is a uniform agreement in presence (anvaya) between two things, or that in all the cases in which one is present the other also is present. Secondly, we see that there is uniform agreement in absence (vyatıreka) between them, i.e. in every case
1 NVT, pp158-64, NM, pp. 113-17. 2 VP,(b II.
3 Vyabh'cārvsyāgra ho'tha sahacāragrahastatbå, hetnrvyaptigrahe tarkah kvacichankänivartakah BP, 137.

Page #287

270
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
in which the one is absent the other also is absent. So far we see that the two things go together both in their presence and absence, or that there is positive and negative coincidence between them (sahacāra). Thirdly, we do not observe any contrary instance in which one of them is present without the other (vyabhıcārāgraha). From this we conclude that there must be a vatural relation of invariable concomitance between the two things."
Still, we are not sure if their relation is dependent on any condition (upādhi) or not. Vyāpti or a universal relation between two things is that relation of concomitance between them which is independent of all upādhis or conditions An upādhı or condition is a term which is coextensive with the major but not with the middle term of an inference ? Thus when one infers the existence of smoke from fire, he relies on a conditional relation between fire and sinoke, since fire is attended with smoke on condition that it is fire from 'wet luel' It will be seen here that the condition of 'wet fuel 'is always related to the major term 'smoke,' but not so related to middle term ' fire,' as there are cases of fire without' wet fuel' Hence to make sure that a certain relation of uniform concomitance between two things 18 a vyāpti or a universal relation, we must eliminate all conditions. This can be done by repeated observation (bhūyodarśana) of their agreement in presence and absence under varying circumstances. Here if we see tbat there is no material circumstance which is present ol absent just when the major term is present or absent, we are to understand that its concomitance with the middle terın is unconditional. In this way we can exclude all the suspected conditions of a relation of concomitance between the middle and inajor terms and say that it is a relation of
1 SM., 137
Avyāptasādbano yah sādbyasamavyāptıracyate sa upādbırıtı, Sarvadarsana. saingraha, Chapter I. Vide also BP., 138

Page #288

GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
271 vyâpti or unconditional concomitance. If even after repeated observation we have any doubt as to there being vyāpti or a universal relation between the middle and major terms, we are to have recourse to tarka or indirect proof to end such doubt. Thus the universal proposition, all cases of smoke are cases of fire,' may be proved indirectly by disproving its contradictory If this universal proposition be false, then its contradictory, 'some cases of smoke are not cases of fire,' must be true. This means that there may be smoke without fire. But the supposition of smoke without fire is contradicted by the known relation of causality between fire and smoke. To say that there may be smoke without fire is to say that there may be an effect without its cause, which is absurd. If any one has the cbstinacy to say that sometimes there may be effects without causes, he must be silenced by the practical contradictions (vyághāta) involved in the supposition If there can be an effect without a cause, why should be constantly seek for fire to produce smoke or for food to alleviate his hunger ? Thus its contradictory being proved to be false, the universal proposition all cases of smoke are cases of fire' comes out as true, 1.e. there is vyāptı or a universal relation between smoke and fire. 2
So far the Naiyāyikas try to establish vyāpti or a universal proposition by the method of simple enumeration supported by tarka or a hypothetical reasoning wbich indirectly proves its validity By examining a number of positive and negative instances of agreement in presence and absence between two things, they conclude that there is a universal relation between them. This conclusion is then indirectly confirmed by showing that a denial of the universal relation between these two things leads to contradictions. But as we have already seen in connection
1 3
Vide, TB, pp. 7-8 Vide SM., 187 : TC, II, pp 210-12,

Page #289

272
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
with their theory of sămânyalaksana perception, a general proposition like 'all smoky objects are fiery' cannot be logically proved by " Induction by Simple Enumeration" In simple enumeration we pass from some observed cases of the relation between two things to a statement about their relation in all cases. Thus from some observed cases of the relation between smoke and fire we infer that all smokes are related to fire. But this inference is not valid, since it violates the general rule of inference that we must not go beyond the evidence. The method of simple enumeration cannot, therefore, conclusively establish vyāptı or a universal proposition. Hence the question is: How from the observation of some smokes as related to fire do we know that all smokes are related to fire? The Naiyāyikas explain this by the help of sāmānyalaksana perception. The universal proposition all smokes are related to fire cannot be explained by the perception of particular instances of smokes as related to fire, for any number of particulars cannot make up the universal. For this we require a perception of the whole class of smokes as related to fire. We have such a perception through the perception of the universal ' smokeness' as related to 'fireness.' In perceiving particular smokes we perceive the universal
smokeness' inhering in them. But to perceive 'smokeness' is to perceive, in a non-sensuous way, all smokes so far as they possess the universal 'smokeness. Hence the universal proposition 'all smoky objects are fiery ' 18 given by a non-sensuous perception of all smokes as related to fire through the perception of smokeness as related to fireness !
The Nyāya method of establishing vyāpti brings out the importance of class-essences or universals for induction.
1 Sāmāyalakbanin vină dbúmutvena sakaladhūmānām validitvena sakalavahnini ca bhāpam katha bhavet tadarthem sãmânyalakşaņā svikriyate, etc., SM., 65 Vyaptigrahasca sámányalaksaņāpratyāgattyå sakaladhūmadivinayakah, etc., TC, II, pp 153-54.

Page #290

GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
273
It shows how the validity of a generalisation from the particulars of experience depends ultimately on the discovery of certain common essences or universal characters of particular things. From the observation of a limited number of instances of the relation between two things we cannot know anything for certain about all possible instances of them unless we find that the things possess a certain essential nature which is the basis of their relation in some cases. The particular objects of experience lend thernselves to a generalisation when they are recognised as instances of a class and possessed of some essential common nature. A number of things are arranged in one class in view of such common essence or universal which is present in all the members of that class, but absent in those of a different class Hence if in some cases we see that something is related to the essential nature or the universal underlying a class, we know that it is related to all the members of that class. The observation of particular instances is important because it helps us to find the universals underlying different classes of things and their relations with one another. Hence the problem of induction is the problem of the discovery of class-essences or universals exemplified in particular things As we have already remarked, sorne Western logicians are slowly recognising the truth of the Nyāya view that an inductive generalisation must be based on the knowledge of classessences or universals embodied in particular things. But they do not go so far as to say with the Naiyāyıkas that an empirical generalisation from particular instances is a matter of non-sensuous intuition based on the perception of universals. They would generally treat it as an inference from known resemblance or as a perfect analogy. Mr. Eaton, however, goes further and maintains that the first step in induction is a direct perception of the universal in the particular. He says : “ Induction proceeds from the
35—(1117B)

Page #291

274
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
particular to the general, but not from the sheer particular. The particular must be seen to embody some characters or relations, to esemplify some form Given a particular, let us say a blinding streak of light, and another particular, a loud crash following immediately after, we must be able to characterise these occurrences and frame a genealızation "lightning is followed by thunder,' in order that induction may have a beginning This most primitive of all inductive steps can be described as the direct perception of the universal in the particular A generalızation relevant to particulars must be framed if it is to be tested, and this primary relevance of a generalization to particulars cannot be manufactured from pirticulars as mere thises and thats There is no process by which this relevance can be inferred. It can only be directly apprehended”! To this first stage of the inductive procedure, Mr Eaton adds a second, in which isolated generalisations are made more probable by the elimination of irrelevance and by fresh evidence, and a third, in which generalisations reinforce one another by entering into logically organised systems? It is to be observed, however, that a generalisation is framed at the very first stage, and that the second and third stages only help us to test and confirm it. Hence so far as the knowledge of the general proposition is concerned, we are to say that it is given to us by way of a direct perception of the universal in the particular.
2.
The question of pelitio principii in inference
As we have already seen,' every inference involves the knowledge of vyāpti or a universal relation between the major and the middle term Without a universal relation
1 RM Eaton, General Logic, p 496 2 Op cit, p501

Page #292

GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
275
between the two, no valid conclusion can be drawn from the premises. It is only when we know that smoke is universally related to fire that we can conclusively prove the existence of fire in a hill in which we see smoke. Otberwise, the inference will be inconclusive and invalid. On the other hand, it would seem that if we know smoke to be universally related to fire, we already know the smoke in the hill to be related to fire. The truth of the universal proposition all cases of smoke are cases of fire' involves, nay, depends on the truth of the proposition' this case of smoke is a case of fire.' Thus it would seem that the major premise of an inference, which is a universal proposition, assumes what we want to prove in the conclusion, 11. an inferenee involves the fallacy of petitio principii or begging the question.
The above dilemma of inference has been anticipated and solved in Indian philosophy. The solution is generally based on the distinction between the knowledge of the universal and that of the particulars coming undei it When we know that smoke is always related to fire, we know them in then general character as two universals This does not imply that we know the relation between all particular sinokes and fires Thus the Mīmāmsakas? argue that the knowledge of vyāptı or a universal relation between smoke and fire does not necessarily involve any knowledge of a particular instance of fire, e.g the fire in a hill. When we know the universal proposition all cases of smoke ale cases of fire, we do not know anything about the hill, far less, about its relation to fire. If that were not so, or, if we know anything about the fire in the hill, there could be no necessity for the perception of smoke in the hill, in order to know the existence of the fire in it. Hence it follows that the conclusion of the inference, namely, 'that
1
Vide SD, pp. 62-63,

Page #293

276
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
hill is fiery,' is a new knowledge which is not involved in the knowledge of its premises. The Naiyāyika view of vyāpti as covering all the individual cases of a relation seems to commit inference to the fallacy of petitio princinii. Thus it has leen held by the Naiyāyika that when we know the tyāpti or the universal relation between smoke and fire, we know all the individual cases of smoke to be related to fire. Otherwise, we cannot account for the inference of fire from the smoke in a bill. If we do not know that the hill-smoke is related to fire, we could not possibly pass from the one to the other. But then the difficulty is that if we already know the hill-smoke to be related to fire, there is no room for an inference to arrive at a new truth The conclusion of such an inference will only repeat what is already stated in the premises. This difficulty in the Nyāya view of inference may however be explained According to the Naiyāyıka, to know that smoke is universally related to fire is indeed to know that all cases of smoke are cases of fire.' But the knowledge we have of all fires and smokes is mediated by the knowledge of the universals 'fireness' and 'smokeness' (sāmānyalaksanāpratyāsattı) This means that we know all fires and smokes in so far as they participate in 'fireness and smokeness,' 1.e. in their general character without any reference to their specific characters. So while the vyāptı gives us a knowledge of the relation between smoke and fire in general, an inference based on it gives us the knowledge of the relation of fire to a particular object, namely, the smoky bill. The major premise of the inference 'all cases of smoke are cases of fire' does not by itself lead to the conclusion that there is fire in the hill. It is only when the major premise is combined with the minor, there is smoke in the bill,' that we draw the conclusion there is fire in the bill.' This shows that the truth of the conclusion is not epistemically involved in that of the major premise or the universal proposition.

Page #294

277
Hence we are to conclude that inference is neither inconclusive nor a petitio principii, since it gives us a new knowledge.1
GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
3. The psychological ground of inference (pakṣatā)
2
Just as inference depends on the knowledge of yāpti or a universal relation between the middle and major terms, so it depends on the relation of the middle term with the minor term. In inference the minor term becomes related to the major through its relation to the middle term Every inference proceeds with regard to some object about which we want to establish something on the ground of a vyāpti or a universal proposition Hence the minor term is as much necessary for inference as the middle term The minor term being called pakṣa in Indian logic, paksata is treated as a necessary condition of inference If there is to be any inference, there must be a paksa or a minor term Hence the question is Under what conditions do we get the minor term of an inference? Or, under what conditions do we draw inference with regard to anything? While the validity of inference depends on vyapti, its possibility depends on pakṣata. Inference takes place when there is a pakṣa or subject of inference, it becomes valid when based on vyāpti or a universal relation between the middle and the major term. Hence while vyapti is the logical ground of inference, pakṣatā is its psychological ground or condition.
From the fact that the minor term is an object about which we want to infer something, it will appear that the two obvious conditions of a minor term are the absence of certainty about something (siddhyabhava) and the will to
1 TB, p 11, TC, II, pp 290-91
2 Anumanasya dve ange vyaptıh pakṣadharmata ca, etc parvatadivittit vain pakşadharmată, TS, p 46
TB,
3, p 11 Vyapyasy

Page #295

278
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
inferit (sısādhayisā). The old Naiyāyıkas' and the Vedāntists? accept both of these conditions when they say that pakşatā consists in the presence of doubt about the sādhya or the major term (sādhyasamdeha). We have a paksa or a minor term when we are in doubt whether a certain subject is related to the sādhya or the major term. Now doubt implies not only the absence ol certain knowledge about something but also a positive desire or will to know it Hence doubt as a condition of interence involves both the absence of certainty about something and the desire to have certain knowledge about that thing
The modern Naiyāyıkas take exception to the above view of paks itā. According to them, neither the absence of certainty nor the will to infer is a necessary condition of inference There may be inference even in the presence of certainty. A logician may, it be so will, inter the existence of an elephant from its trumpeting voice even when he has perceived it and so acquired certain knowledge about it Or, a man may infer the existence of the self even when he has acquired certain knowledge about it from the scriptures. Again, there may be inference even when there is no will to infer, as when one involuntarily infers the existence of clouds from the roar of thunder This case shows also that the presence of doubt is not an essential condition of inference, since there is in it no previous doubt as to the existence of clouds in the slv Thus we see that inference takes place under the following conditions (a) when there are absence of certainty and presence of the will to infer , (b) when there is absence of both certainty and the will to infer; (c) when there is presence of both certainty and the will to infer. But no inference takes place when there are pre
1 Na dirpīte'rthe nyāyaḥ pravartate kintu sazaśayıte, NB, 11.1 Samdıgdhasādhyadharmă dbami pakşah, 7'B , p 11
3 Pakgatvam tn sālhyasamdehavattvam sådhyagocaranadhakamāpābhāvavattvaro vå, Adoartasiddhi, p 29

Page #296

GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
279
sence of certainty and absence of the will to infer. Hence to combine the first three cases and exclude only the last, we are to say that inference takes place in all cases excepting that in which there are presence of certainty and absence of the will to infer This is expressed by the modern Naiyāyıkas by saying that paksatā consists in the absence of that condition in wbich there are the presence of certainty and absence of the will to infer !
The conditions of valid inference have of late been discussed by some Western logicians. All of them, however, do not sufficiently realise the importance of the psychological condition of inference, which Indian logicians discuss so thoroughly under the theory of pakşatā Russell seems to think that all that is necessary for inference is the logical condition of a relation of implication between propositions According to him, the psychological element, namely, our knowledge of the propositions and their relation, is not a necessary condition of inference. Thus he says 'It is plam that where we validly inferone proposition from another, we do SO in virtue of a relation which holds between the two propositions whether ne perceive it or not. the mind, in fact, is as purely receptive in inference as common sense supposes it to be in perception of sensible objects ?? Some other Western logicians like M. Johnson and Dr. Stebbing have recognised the importance of buth the logical and psychological conditions of inference. According to them, there are two kinds of conditions for any valid inference. The first kind of conditions refers to the propositions and the relations that hold between them These conditions are said to be independent of the
1 Sisādhayısāviraha-vjśistasiddhyabhāvaḥ paksată Yatra siddhirnāsti tatra Bışādhayisāyām satyāmasatya inapi paksatā Yatra Bisādhayısāsti tatra siddhau gatvāmasatyāmapi paksata Yatra siddhiraati sisādhayisā ca nāsti tatra na pakşatā, etc, SM , pp 309 10. Vide also TM , C II, TC, II, pp 407-32
2 Russell, Principles of Mathematics, p 33 3 Stebbing, Modern Introduction to Logic, pp 216-16.

Page #297

280
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
thinker and are called by Mr. Johnson the “ constitutive conditions." In order that the proposition q may be formally inferred from p, it is necessary that p should logically imply q and also that p should be true. The other kind of conditions refers to the relation of the propositions to what the thinker may happen to know. Since in inference a thinker passes from somethung known to something inferred, it follows that the propositions and their relations must be known by us. It follows also that what is inferred must not be already known as true or false In order that q may be validly inferred from p, it is necessary that p must be known to be true, and also that p must be known to imply a without its being known that q is true. These conditions are dependent upon the relation of the thinker to the propositions involved in inference, and are called “the epistemic conditions of inference.
It would appear from the above that there is a consensus of opinion among logicians, both Indian and Western, that a valid inference must satisfy at least two conditions, namely, that there must be a true proposition and that it must imply another proposition. There is, however, some difference of opinion among them as to how these conditions condition inference. While a realist like Russell seems to thuk that they condition inference even when they are not known, Indian logicians maintain that they can condition inference only when they are known by us. According to them, wbile perception may be said to be conditioned by the existence of the sense organs, inference is conditioned, not by the mere fact, but by the knowledge of something as a sign and that of its invariable relation to something else, although the reality of these things and their relation is independent of our mind." These two views seem to be reconciled
18à (vyāptih) ca sattaya cakşurădivapnangabhāvam bhajate kintu Sorvadarsanasangraha, Ch, I Cf also BP , 66, VP , Ch. II,
08"staya,

Page #298

GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
281
by Mr. Johnson who holds that for inference there must not only be a true proposition and a relation of implication between propositions, but that these must be known by the thinker who is inferring.
With regard to what we have called the psychological conditions of inference, there is a sharp difference of opinion among logicians. The question here is : Under wbat conditions does inference take place ? The answer given to this question by the old Naiyāyıkas and the Vedāntins is that inference takes place when there is a doubt about what is to be inferred. This is perhaps the most plausible view that would be readily accepted by common sense. No man takes the trouble to infer or prove anything unless he is in doubt about it. This view, however, is contradicted by the inference of clouds from the sudden roar of thunder, since it is not preceded by any doubt in the mind of the thinker who infers.
But then it may be said that want of certainty, if not a positive state of doubt, is the essential condition of inference In the Advaitasiddhi this view is accepted as in alternative to the first given above, when it says that paksatā consists in the absence of proof relating to what is to be inferred.' Among Western logicians, Dr. Stebbing also supports this view when she says : “ Since interence is a process in which a tbınker passes from something known to something inferred, it is clear that we would not say we bad inferred q if we had already asserted q It is, therefore, obvious that I must not be known to be true, and equally obvious that q must not be known to be false."' 2 There is a strong presumption in favour of this view. Inference as a source of knowledge aims at giving us certain knowledge about things. So it is obvious that if we want to
1 Bådhyagocarasidhakamānābhāvavattvam vā, Advartasıddhe, p. 29. ; Modern Introductron to Logic, p. 216.
36—(1117B)

Page #299

282
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
know anything by inference, it is because we lack certain knowledge about it.
Now let us consider if the second view can explain all the cases of inference mentioned by the modern Naiyāyıkas. There seems to be no difficulty so far as the first two cases are concerned. In the first case (a), we have inference when there is the absence of certainty together with the will to infer, e.g. the inference of future rain from the appearance of dark clouds in the sky In the second case (), we have inference when there is the absence of both certainty and the will to infer, eg the inference of clouds from the roar of thunder While there is the absence of certainty in both these cases, the will to infer is absent in the second. This seems to suggest that the absence of certainty is the essential condition, and the will to infer only an accidental condition of inference. But when we come to the third case, we are confronted by an exception to the rule that every inference is conditioned by the absence of certainty. Thus in case (c), we have inference when there is certainty together with the will to infer If this be so, we have to reject the view that the absence of certainty is an essential condition of inference and recognise the importance of the will to infer as a condition of inference. But the question is : Is there really any case in which inference takes place in spite of certainty and in virtue of the will to infer? The examples cited by the Naiyāyikas are rather doubtful cases. Thus it may be said that if a logician infers the existence of an elephant perceived by him, it must be because he has some doubt, however slight, about the truth of bis perception. Similarly, we may say that when a person infers the existence of the self known by him through the scriptures, It must be because he is not absolutely sure of the truth of his scriptural knowledge. But there are certain cases of inference which may be taken as crucial instances. The path described by a falling body may be deduced by a physi

Page #300

GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
283
cist from certain laws of motion, even when he sees it and has no doubt about the reality of what he sees. 'We might prove, to a person who doubted the correctness of our memory, that it rained yesterday, by pointing to other facts with which rain is necessarily connected.' A lawyer may produce evidences to prove a case of which he has a personal knowledge. Some theorems of Geometry prove what is otherwise obvious or clearly perceived. At least, the geometrician who proves them has no doubt about their truth. It is true that in some of these cases there is some doubt in the mind of the person or persons for whom these inferences are made. But we must frankly admit that there is no doubt in the mind of the person who makes the inference. It cannot be said that the presence of doubt in one mind conditions the process of inference occurring m a different mind. Hence we are to admit that there may be inference in the face of certainty, only if we have the will to inter It may, of course, be asked here. What does the will to infer aim at in such a case? To this we reply that it aims at denonstrating a known fact by showing its necessary connection with other facts It cannot be said that the demonstrative knowledge of the fact being absent before, the inference is really conditioned by the absence of certainty. So far as the knowledge of the fact is concerned, its demonstration adds nothing to the certainty with which it was otherwise known before Nor can we say that what the demonstrative inference proves is not that there is such-and-such a fact, but that such-and-such a fact follous from certain other facts. That a fact follows from other facts is no part of the conclusion of an unference, but a part of its grounds or premises. Hence we are to say that the conclusion of the demonstrative inference states the same fact that was previously known by perception or memory, only it arrives at the fact by way of inference. And, as Prof. Creighton says: “It is not necessary for inference that the conclusion reached

Page #301

284
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
should be a fact which was not hitherto known."! So we conclude that the modern Naiyāyikas are justified when they emphasise the function of will in inference, and define pakşatā as the absence of the condition in which there is certainty, but no will to infer.
4. Lingaparāmarsa as the immediate cause of inference
As we have already seen, every inference inust involve at least three steps. There is first the knowledge of the middle term as related to the minor term (lingajñāna). Secondly, tbere is the knowledge of a universal relation between the middle and the major terms (vyāptijñāna) Lastly, there is the conclusion, in which the major term is predicated of the minor term. The conclusion is the result of inference as a process of reasoning Now the question is : What is the special cause (karana) that brings about the conclusion? Is it the knowledge of the linga or the middle term ? Or, is it the knowledge of vyāptı or the universal relation between the middle and major terms ?
According to the older logicians, including the Buddhists, the Jainas and some Naiyāyıkas, it is the knowledge of the linga or the middle term that leads to the conclusion. 2 Hence the middle term, known as such, is to be taken as the karaṇa or operative cause of inference For the Mīmāmsakas and the Vedāntists, the knowledge of vyāptı or the universal relation between the middle and major terms is the karana or special cause of inference. The knowledge of vyāpti is revived in our mind when we see the linga or the middle term as related to the pakṣa or the minor term, and this leads to the conclusion. On this view an inference will
1 Introductory Logic, p 432 2 Vide SM ,p 280

Page #302

GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
285
include the following steps (1) the knowledge of vyāpti or the universal relation between the middle and major terms, e.g. all cases of smoke are cases of fire; (2) the perception of the minor term as qualified by the middle term, e.g. the hill is a case of smoke; (3) a revival of the impression of vyāpti previously acquired, without any necessary recollection of it; and (4) the conclusion that the minor term is related to the major term, e.g. the hill is a case of fire. 1
According to the modern Naiyayikas, the linga or the middle term cannot be the karana or operative cause of inference. The middle term may be a thing of the present or the past or the future. But it cannot function in an inference when past or future The middle term cannot lead to the conclusion except through the knowledge of vyaptı or the universal relation between it and the major term. Hence the knowledge of vyapti or the universal relation between the middle and major terms should be taken as the special cause (karana) of inference. But the knowledge of vyāpt does not immediately lead to the conclusion. It has for its function (vyāpāra) a synthetic view of the middle term as related to the major, on the one hand, and the minor, on the other (lingaparāmarśa). I bis is called trtiyalıngaparāmarśa, i.e. a consideration of the middle term for the third time. The middle term, e.g. smoke, is known first when we acquire the knowledge of its invariable relation with the major term 'fire' in the kitchen, etc. It is known for the second time in relation to the minor term, e.g. the hill. It is considered for the third
2
1 Vide Siddhantamuktavali with Dinakari, pp 288 89 Cf Vedanta-Paribhāṣā, Chapter, II "evam ca ayam dhumavan' iti paksadharinatājñāne' dhūmo vahnivyāpys' ityanubhavabıtasamskarodbodhe ca satı vahnıman 'ityanumitirbhavati, na tu madhye vyaptismaranamh tajjanyam vahnivyapyadhumavānayam' ityādi viseṣanavisistajñānam
? Vyāpārastu paramarśaḥ karanam vyaptıdhirbhavet, etc., BP. and SM., 66-67
11
6

Page #303

286
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
time when we know it as that character of the minor term which is univers ılly related to the major, as when we say 'the hill is possessed of such smoke as is always related tr fire.' 1 It is through such lingaparāmarśa or knowledge o the middle term as universally related to the major and a characterising the minor, that the knowledge of vyāpti leads to the conclusion. Hence while the knowledge of vyāpti is the special cause (karana) of inference, lingaparāmarśa is the immediate cause caramakārana) of the conclusion ? Some modern Naiyāyıkas go further and say that lingaparāmarsa itself is the operative cause (karana) of inference. On this analysis inference involves the following steps : (1) the knowledge of ryāptı or the universal relation between the middle and major terms, e.g all cases of smoke are cases of fire ; (2) the perception of the minor term as related to the middle, eg. the hill is a case of smoke; (3) a recollection of tbe vyāpti between the middle and major terms; (4) a contemplation of the middle as correlating the major and minor terms, eg. the hill is a case of smoke per vaded by fire ; (5) the conclusion relating the minor term with the major, e.g the hill is a case of fire 4
As it has been pointed out by Dr D M Datta, the Nyāya view of lingaparāmarsa as the immediate antecedent of the conclusion agrees with Bradley's analysis of inference." According to Bradley, an inference is always an ideal con
1 Mabăngădau dratante . dhūmajñānam prathamam, tataḥ parvată dau dhumain irotvă vyāpyatvene tatsmaraṇam dvitiyam, tatastatrava vyāpyatvena dhūmasya jerāmargo vabdivyāpyadbûmavå dagamityevamrūpo jāyata iti tftiyatvam, Tarkakaumudi, p 10
; Vzde TC., II, pp 521-51 3 Vide Tarkasamgraba, p 50
4 Yena puruses mabānasādau dhūme vabdivyāptirgrhītā pascāt sa eva purusah kvacitparvatādāvaviccbindamū'ara dhūmarı kbām paśyatı, tadanantaram dhūmo vahdi. vyāpya ityevamrūpam vyāptism aranam tasya bhavata paścácca vabdivyāpyadhūlpavadaya. miti jñācam bbavati sa eva parānuarga ityucyate tadanantara parvato vabnimādityanumitirjāyate, Siddhantamuktavali, pp 284-86.
Vide The S13 Ways of Knowing, p. 207.

Page #304

GROUNDS OF INFERENCE
287
struction resulting in the perception of a new connection. The premises of inference are the data, and the process of inference consists in joining them into a whole by an ideal construction. “We must fasten them together, so that they cease to be several and are one construction, one individual whole. Thus instead of A-B, B-C we must have A-B-C” Take for example the inference: 'Man is mortal and Cæsar is a man and therefore Cæsar is mortal.' In this inference “there is first a construction as Cæsar-man-mortal, and then by inspection we get Cæsar-mortal.” ! So also the Naiyāyikas bold that withcut lingaparāmarśa as a synthetic correlation of the minor, middle and major terms we cannot explain the transition from the premises to the conclusion. If no such synthesis was required, then the preinises could, even in their isolation, lead to the conclusion. 2 The Vedāntists, however, contend that the two premises, taken together, lead to the conclusion. When I see smoke in a hill and remember that smoke is always' related to fire, I am at once led to the knowledge that there is fire in the hill. It is not necessary for me to stop and say further, 'the smoke in the hill is a smoke pervaded by fire.' 8 As we shall see it more fully later on, in the case of inference for oneself we do not require anything more than the major and minor premises to arrive at the conclusion. There is a natural transition of thought from these premises to the conclusion When, however, we are to demonstrate the truth of the conclusion to other persons, we must state the identity of the middle term occurring in the two premises and exbibit it in a third premise which relates the same middle to the minor and major terms. Here we assert that the same M which
1 Bradley, Principles of Logic, Vol. I, p. 269. 2 SM., 63 3 VP., Ch II

Page #305

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
is always related to P is present in S. Hence we conclude that lingaparāmarśa is not an essential condition of all inferences, although it serves to make an inference most cogent and convincing
288

Page #306

CHAPTER XIII
CLASSIFICATION AND LOGICAL FORMS OF
INFERENCE
1.
Svārtha and Parārtha inferences
In Indian logic an inference is a combined deductiveinductive reasoning consisting of at least three categorical propositions. All inferences are thus pure syllogisms of the categorical type which are at once formally and materially valid. llence we have not a classification of inferences into deductive and inductive, immediate and mediate, syllogistic and non-syllogistic, pure and mixed. The Naiyāyikas give us three different classifications of inference. According to the first, inference is of two kinds, namely, svārtha and parārtha. This is a psychological classification which has in view the use or purpose which an inference serves According to another classification, inference is said to be of three kinds, namely, pūrvavat, gesavat and sāmānyatodrsța. This classification has reference to the nature of the vyāptı or the universal relation between the middle and major terms of inference. Pūrvavat and seşavat inferences are based on causal uniformity, while sāmānyatodęşta is based on non-causal uniforinity. According to a third classification, inference is distinguished into kevalānvayı, kevala-vyatireki and anvaya-vyalireki. This classification is more logical inasmuch as it depends on the nature of the induction by which we get the knowledge of vyāpti or the universal
37—(1117B)

Page #307

290
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
proposition involved in inference. These different kinds of inference we shall have to consider one after another.
All inferences must have one of two ends in view. They are meant either for the acquisition of some new knowledge on our part or for the demonstration of a known truth to others. Accordingly, all inferences are classed under the two heads of svārtha or inference for oneself and parārtha or inference for others.' An inference is called svārtha when it aims at the knowledge of an unperceived object on the part of a man who employs that inference. In this kind of inference a man seeks only to reach the conclusion for himself by relating it to the major and minor premises. This is illustrated in the case of a man who infers the existence of fire in a hill because be first perceives a mass of smoke in it and then remembers that there is a universal relation between smoke and fire. On the other hand, an inference is parārtha when it aims at demonstrating the truth of the conclusion to other people. In this inference there is a justification of the conclusion through a justification of the middle term that leads to it. It is bere specifically pointed out that the same middle terrn which is universally related to the major is also present in the minor ter.n. The conclusion is thus found to follow necessarily from a synthesis of the major and minor premises. This synthesis is embodied in a third premise which relates the minor, middle and major terms of the inference. A parārtha anumāna is illustrated when a man having inferred the existence of fire in a hill lays it down as a thesis and proves it as a conclusion following from the major and minor premises and their combination into a third premise. ?
1 Taccānumāpam dvividhani, gyártham Parártham ceti, TB, p 9. 2 T8, pp 46.49,

Page #308

CLASSIFICATION OF INFERENCE
291
2. Pūrvavat, Seșavat and Sāmānyatodrșța inferences
In the Nyāya-Sūtra' inference is distinguished into three kinds, namely, pūrvavat, sesavat and sāmānyatodrsta. There are different views with regard to the nature of these inferences. According to one view, a pūrvavat inference is that in which we infer the unperceived effect from a perceived cause. Here the linga or the middle term is related to the sādhya or the major term as its cause and is, therefore, antecedent to it. In this inference we pass from the knowledge of the antecedent cause to that of the consequent effect. This is illustrated when from the presence of dark heavy clouds in the sky we infer that there will be rainfall. A sesavat inference is that in which we infer the unperceived cause from a perceived effect. Here the middle term is related as an effect to the major term and is, therefore, consequent to it In this inference we pass from the knowledge of the effect-phenomenon to that of the antecedent causal phenomenon. This is illustrated in the inference of previous rain from the rise of the water in the river and its swift muddy current It will be observed here that in both pūrvavat and sesavat inferences the vyāptı or the universal relation between the major and middle terms is a uniform relation of causality between them. These inferences thus depend on scientific inductions. In sāmānyatodrsța inference, however, the vyāptı or the universal relation between the major and middle terms does not depend on a causal uniformity. The middle term of the inference is related to the major term neither as a cause nor as an effect. We infer the one from the other, not because they are causally connected, but because they are uniformly related to each other in our experience. This is illustrated, when one infers that the sun moves because, like other
1 Vide NS , 1, 1.5.

Page #309

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
moving objects, its position changes, or, when we argue that a thing must have some attributes because it is like a substance. Here the inference depends not on a causal connection, but on certain observed points of similarity between different objects of experience. So it is more akin to an analogical argument than to syllogistic inference.
According to a second interpretation, a pūrvavat inference is that which is based on previous experience. If two things have always been found to be related in the past, then from the perception of the one we infer the existence of the other, as when we infer fire from smoke. Similarly, a śeşavat inference is taken to mean inference by elimination, in which the inferred character is the residuum of a process of elimination which excludes other characters. This is illustrated when one argues that sound must be a quality because it cannot be a substance or an activity or a relation and so on. So also sāmānyatodȚsta inference is explained as that in which we do not perceive the relation between the major and middle terms, but find the middle to be similar to objects which are related to the major tern. This is illustrated when one argues that the soulsubstance exists because the quality of consciousness must, like other qualities, inhere in a substance ? According to a third view? these three kinds of inferences may be taken to mean kevalānvayı, kevala-vyatıreki and anvaya-vyatıreki inferences which we are to consider next.
3. Kevalānvayı, Kevala-vyatireki and Anvaya-vyatıreki
inferences In view of the different methods of establishing vyāptı or a universal relation between the major and middle term3, inferences have been classified into the kevalānvay, the
1 Vide NB., 1 1 5 2 Vide NV. & NSV ,11 5.

Page #310

CLASSIFICATION OF INFERENCE
293
kevala-vyatireki and the anvaya-vyatıreki. An inference is called kevalānvayı when it is based on a middle term which is always positively related to the major term. Here the knowledge of vyāptı between the middle and major terms is arrived at only through the method of agreement in presence (anvaya), since there is no negative instance of their agreement in absence. This is illustrated in the following ipference :
All knowable objects are nameable; The pot is a knowable object; Therefore the pot is nameable.
In this inference the major premise is a universal affirmative proposition in which the predicate nameable is affirmed of all knowable objects. This universal proposition is arrived at by simple enumeration of the positive instances of agreement in presence between the knowable and the nameable Corresponding to this universal affirmative proposition we cannot have a real universal negative proposition like 'No unnameable object is knowable,' for we cannot point to or name anything that is unnameable. ? The minor premise and the conclusion of this inference are also universal affirmative propositions and cannot be otherwise. Hence with regard to its logical form the kevalānvayı inference is a syllogism of the first mood of the first figure, technically called Barbara.
A kevala-vyatireki inference is that in wbich the middle term is negatively related to the major term. It depende on a vyāpti or a universal relation between the absence of the major term and that of the middle term. Accordingly, the knowledge of vyāptı is here arrived at only through the method of agreement in absence (vyatıreka), since there is
1 Yatra sādhyavgatireko na kutrāpynsti sa kevalanvayi, TM , Ch. IT. 9 TB., p 10.

Page #311

294
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
no positive instance of agreement in presence between the middle and major terms excepting the minor term.' This may be illustrated by the following inferences :
(1) No non-soul is animate ;
All living beings are animate ;
Therefore all living beings have souls.? (2) What is not different from the other elements has
no smell ; The earth has smell ; Therefore the earth is different from the other
elements. Symbolically put the inferences stand thus
No not-P 18 M;
S is M; Therefore S is P.
In the second inference above, it will be seen, the middle term 'smell’ is the differentia of the minor term 'earth.' An inference which is thus based on the differentia (laksana) as the middle term is also called kevala-vyatireki 4 In at the minor term is co-extensive with the middle. Hence we have no positive instance of the coexistence of the middle with any term but the minor. So there can be vyāpti or a universal relation only between the absence of the middle and the absence of the major term. We cannot point to any positive instance of agreement in presence between the major and middle terms, except those covered by the minor term. Hence the major premise is a universal negative proposition arrived at by simple enumeration of
1 Kevalevyatireki tvasatsapakşo. etc, TC, II, pp 582 f. Vyatırekavyāptau tu sådhyābhāvo vyäpyah betvābhāvo vyāpakah, TM , Ch II.
2 Vide TB.,p 10 3 Vede TS ,p 52. 4 Lakşanamapi kevalavyatireki betuh, TB., p. 10 6 Yatra sādbyaprasıddbib pakşatırıkte păsti, sa kevalavyatireki, TM., Ch. II.

Page #312

CLASSIFICATION OF INFERENCE
295
negative instances of agreement in absence between the major and middle terms. The minor premise is a universal affirmative proposition. But although one of the premises is negative, the conclusion is affirmative, which is against the general syllogistic rules of Formal Logic. Hence we see that kevala-vyatireki inference is not any of the valid moods of syllogism recognised by Formal Logic. The validity of such inferences, however, has been admitted by Bradley as a special case of negative reasoning?
An inference is called anvaya-vyatıreki when its middle term is both positively and negatively related to the major term. 3 In it there is vyāptı or a universal relation between the presence of the middle and the presence of the major term as well as between the absence of the major and the absence of the middle term. The knowledge of the vyāptı or the universal proposition, or which the inference depends, is arrived at through the joint method of agreement in presence and in absence (anvaya and vyatıreka). The vyāptı or the universal proposition is affirmative (anvayi) when it is the result of an enumeration of positive instances of agreement in presence between the middle and major terms. It is negative (vyatireki) when it is based on the simple enumeration of negative instances of agreement in absence between the middle and major terms. The difference between the universal affirmative and universal negative propositions (anvaya-vyāpti and vyatıreka-vyāptı) is that the subject of the affirmative proposition becomes the predicate, and the contradictory of the predicate of the affirmative proposition becomes the subject in the corresponding negative proposition Hence an anvaya-vyatireki
1 Vide TB, P 10 2 Vide Bradley, Principles of Logic, VO I, pp 274-82
3 Yatra sădhyem sãdhyābhāvasca anyatra prasiddhaḥ so 'nvayavyatireki, etc., TM., Ch. II
4 Sa cănvayavyatırekī, anvayena vyatırekena ca vyåptimattvät, etc , TB., P 9, 5 Ibid.

Page #313

296
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
inference may be based on either a universal affirmative or a universal negative proposition as its major premise. It is illustrated in the following pair of inferences:
(1) All cases of smoke are cases of fire; The hill is a case of smoke;
Therefore the hill is a case of fire.
(2) No case of not-fire is a case of smoke ; The hill is a case of smoke;
Therefore the hill is a case of fire.
The Vedantists do not recognise the above classification of inference into kevalānvayi, kevala-vyatıreki and anvayavyatireki. According to them, inference is logically of one kind, namely, anvayi. An inference must be based on vyapti or the universal relation between the middle and major terms. The knowledge of vyapti is arrived at through the observation of agreement in presence between the middle and major terms with the non-observation of any contrary instance. Hence for the Vedantists, both the premises as also the conclusion of an inference must be universal affirmative propositions. That is, all inferences must be in the technical form of Barbara. But there cannot be any kevalānvay in the sense of an inference in which the major term is a character that is not anywhere non-existent. In kevalanvayı the middle term is only positively related to the major term, since there is no case of their absence. This, however, is not true. The whole system of finite categories being transcended and negated in Brahman or the Absolute, we cannot have any term which is never non-existent As for the Nyaya view of vyatireki, the Vedantists contend that as a reasoning based on a universal negative proposition it is not to be regarded as an inference, but as arthāpatti or postulation. An inference is a knowledge of the major term through that of

Page #314

CLASSIFICATION OF INFERENCE
297
the middle term. This knowledge is based on the vyāpti or the universal relation between the presence of the middle and the presence of the major term. When one infers fire from smoke he depends on the knowledge of vyāpti, not between the absence of fire and the absence of smoke, but between the presence of smoke and the presence of fire. There being no such thing as vyatirekı inference, we cannot admit the possibility of an vaya-vyatireki inference wbich is but a synthesis of the anvayi and vyatireki forms of inference. ? According to the Naiyāyikas, however, arthāpattı is not a separate method. of knowledge, but a form of inference. We shall have to consider this question more fully hereafter.
4. The logical form of inference All the systems of Indian philosophy agree in holding that the syllogism represents the typical form of an inferential reasoning In inference we arrive at a truth through the medium of some other truths Like the conclusion of a syllogism, inferential knowledge is a deduction from certain propositions. There is however some controversy among the different systems as to the number of the constituent parts or propositions entering into an inference (avayava).
According to some old Naiyāyıkas, there are ten members or constituent parts of au inference. These are (1) jijñāsā or the desire to know the truth, (2) samśaya or doubt about the real nature of a thing, (3) śakyaprāpti or the capacity of the pramāṇas to lead to true knowledge, (4) prayojana or the purpose of making an inference, (5) samsaya-vyudāsa or the removal of all doubts about the truth of an inference, (6) pratijñā or the first proposition, (7) hetu or the reason, (8) udāharana or the example, (9) upanaya or the application of the example, and (10) nigamana or the final conclusion. ?
1 Vide VP , Ch II 9 NB, 1.1 32.
38-(1117B)

Page #315

298
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The above view of the syllogism as consisting of ten parts or members (daśāvayava) has been criticised and rejected by the later Naiyayikas, from Vatsyāyana downwards. According to them, the first five factors, mentioned above, are unnecessary for proving anything by means of an inference. They represent not so much the logical steps in drawing a conclusion as the psychological or epistemological conditions involved in inference. Thus the desire to know (jñāsā) may be taken as a condition of all knowledge, by which we want to realise some end. But such desire does not prove anything to any person and cannot, therefore, be regarded as a factor of inferential reasoning, Similarly, doubt is the impetus to a desire to know the truth and is, in this sense, a condition of knowledge. But to doubt is not to prove anything The validity of all knowledge depends on the validity of the methods of knowledge (sakyaprāpti). But the validity of the methods cannot be put forward as a part of the argument to prove a conclusion. So also the purpose or the end, which an inference serves, is no part of the inference itself. The removal of doubt (samsaya-ı yudāsa) consists in repudiating all views which contradict the conclusion of an inference. This serves to lend indirect support to the conclusion, but does not really prove it. Hence it has been held by the Naiyayikas that the syllogism consists of the last five members mentioned above, since they are all necessary for proving or demonstrating a truth. The Samkhya 2 and Vaiseşika 3 systems also accept this view of the syllogism as consisting of five members or propositions. The five members of the syllogism have been explained by the Naiyāyikas as follows.
1
1 NS. & NB., 1. 1 32.
2 Vide Samkhya-Sutra, 5 27
3 In Prasastapada's Padarthadharmasamgraha (p 114) the five members of the syllogism are called pratyña, apadesa, nidarsana, anusamdhana and pratyamnayo

Page #316

CLASSIFICATION OF INFERENCE
299
(1) The first member of the syllogism is called the pratijñā or the propositum. It is just a statement of one's position and consists in the assertion of some unperceived quality or character in relation to some object of experience. The assertion may be affirmative or negative. Hence in the pratijñā a certain predicate is either affirmed or denied of a certain subject, e.g. 'the hill is fiery,' or 'sound is not eternal.' The pratijñā includes a subject (pakşa) and a predicate (sūdhya), but no copula or verb to relate the two, e.g. parvato vahnimān.' It thus corresponds to a proposition without any copula. It is to be proved and established by other propositions in the course of the inference. The pratijñā simply tells us what the subject of the inference is and what we want to infer or prove with regard to it."
(2) The second member of the syllogism is called the hetu or the reason. It consists in the statement of the mark or the sign (linga) which being present in the subject or the minor term suggests that the latter possesses a certain property predicated of it. It is the assertion of the middle term by which we know that the pakṣa or the minor term is or is not related to the sādhya or the major term. It may thus be called the middle premise or the middle proposition of the syllogism. But while the pratijñā 18 a proposition of two terms, the hetu 18 a one-term proposition, Thus for the propositum 'the hill is fiery,' the hetu or the middle proposition is 'dhūmāt,' i.e. 'because of smoke.' ?
(3) The third member of the syllogism is called udāharanı or the example It consists in the assertion of a universal relation (vyāpti) between the major and middle terms with reference to some apposite instances. The hetu or the middle term proves the presence or the absence of the
1 NS & NB., 1. 1. 93. 3 Ibid., 1.1.34-36

Page #317

300
major in the minor only as it is connected with the minor, on the one hand, and universally related to the major, on the other. Hence the universal relation between the major and middle terms must be duly asserted as an essential member of the syllogism. This assertion is a universal proposition which may be either affirmative or negative. It is a universal affirmative proposition when it indicates the agreement in presence between the major and middle terms as supported by a positive instance, e.g. 'all cases of smoke are cases of fire, to wit, the kitchen' It takes the form of a universal negative proposition when it shows the agreement in absence between the two, as supported by a negative instance, e.g 'no case of not-fire is a case of smoke, to wit, the lake.' 1 The third member of the Nyaya inference thus corresponds to the major premise of the syllogisms in the first figure. As a universal proposition supported by certain instances, the third member of the syllogism is found to be an inductive generalisation based on actual facts of observation. It thus shows that an inference is both deductive and inductive, formally valid and materially true. As Dr. Seal rightly observes : ' It harmonises Mill's view of the major premise as a brief memorandum of like instances already observed, with the Aristotelian view of it as the universal proposition which is the formal ground of the inference.'
(4) The fourth member of the syllogism is called upanaya or the application. It consists in the application of the universal proposition with its example to the subject or the minor term of the inference. While the third member of the syllogism states the universal relation between the major and middle terms, or between their absence, the fourth member shows the presence or the absence of the middle
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
92
1 Ibid., 11 36-37. Cf Vyaptipradaréanavışayo drstantaḥ, NVT., p 304. 2 The Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hmdus, p. 252.

Page #318

301
"
in the minor term. It may thus be called the minor premise of the syllogism, and may be a universal affirmative or negative proposition. It is affirmative when it is the application of an affirmative major premise with a positive instance, e.g. so, like the kitchen, the hill is smoky.' It is a negative proposition when it is the application of a negative major premise with a negative instance, e.g. unlike the lake, the hill is not not-smoky, i e. it is smoky.' The fourth member of the syllogism is not merely a repetition of the second or the middle proposition. It brings out the identity between the middle term mentioned in the second member and that which is stated to be universally related to the major in the third member of the syllogism. As such, it is a synthesis of the second and third members of the syllogism. It shows that the same middle which is universally related to the major term is also present in the minor term, and is, therefore, very useful for the purpose of proof.
(5) The fifth and the last member of the syllogism is called nigamana or the conclusion. Here the preceding four steps are brought to a point so as to demonstrate the truth of the first proposition, with which the inference starts. It consists in the re-statement of the pratijñā or the propositum as proved by the major and minor premises, e.g. 'therefore the hill is fiery.' It should not be supposed that the conclusion is an unmeaning repetition of the first proposition. What is at first put forward as a hypothesis or bare assertion is asserted in the conclusion as a firmly established truth. What appears in the first proposition as a judgment to be proved, does indeed re-appear in the conclusion, but as something proved and demonstrated by other propositions.2
•
CLASSIFICATION OF INFERENCE
1 NS, and NB, 11.88; 'TR, pp 181 f,
2 Ibid.; NS. and NB., 1.1.39.

Page #319

302
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The logical form of an inference or the syllogism, according to the Naiyāyikas, may be illustrated in the following ways :
S is P; :::8 is M;
M 18 P;
S is M; ...S is P.
OT,
The bill is fiery; Because it smokes ; Whatever smokes is fiery, e.g. the kitchen ; So the hill smokes; Therefore it is fiery.
S is P; .: Sis M;
No not-P is M;
S is not not-M; .. S is P.
The hill 18 fiery; Because it smokes ; Whatever 18 not-fiery does not smoke,
e.g. the lake : Not so the bill (i.e. the hill does smoke) ; Therefore the hill is fiery.
The Mimārsakas and the Vedāntists join issue with the Naiyāyikas on the question of the parts or members of a syllogism.' They agree with the Naiyāyıkas in holding that the syllogism is necessary only for parārthānumâna or demonstrative inference and that svārthânumāna or inference
i Vide SD., p. 64; VP., Chap. II.

Page #320

303
or a
for oneself requires no verbal statement in the form of the above syllogism. But they decline to accept the Nyaya view that the syllogism consists of five members or propositions. According to them, a syllogism does not require more than three members to carry conviction to anybody. The two essential conditions of a valid inference are vyāpti universal relation between the major and middle terms and pakṣadharmată or the presence of the middle term in the minor. Hence the full force of a syllogism comes out in the body of three affirmative propositions, two of which stand for the grounds of inference and one for the conclusion. These three propositions are either the pratijñā. hetu and udaharana, or the udāharaṇa, upanaya and nigamana.1 Hence we will have two forms of the syllogism which may be put thus:
(1)
Or,
(2)
Or,
CLASSIFICATION OF INFERENCE
S 18 P;
Sis M; All M is P.
The hill is fiery ;
Because it smokes ;
Whatever smokes is fiery, e.g. the kitchen.
All M is P;
S 18 M; .. Sis P.
Whatever smokes is fiery, e.g. the kitchen; The hill smokes ;
Therefore it is fiery.
1 The Buddhists go further than the Mimamsakas and the Vedantists in reducing the syllogism to two propositions only, namely, the udaharana and the upanaya, but no nigamana or conclusion As Mr. Joseph and Dr Stebbing also point out, we may sometimes put an argument in the form of a single proposition as when we say 'if wishes were horses, beggars could ride.' (Cf. Joseph's Introduction to Logic, p. 852; Stebbing's Modern Introduction to Logic, p. 110)

Page #321

304
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
It will be observed here that in the first form of the syllogism given above, the inference starts from the conclusion, and then the premises are stated to justify it. In the second form, the premises are given first and then the conclusion is drawn from them That inferences may take both forms has been recognised by some modern Western logicians like H. W. B. Joseph, L. S. Stebbing, 2 F M. Chapman and Paul Henle. But it will be admitted by all that while the second form (in which the premises come first and the conclusion last) has a rigidly formal character, it is the first (in which the conclusion comes first and the premises last) that is ordinarily used by us when we actually infer anything “In ordinary speech we more often state the conclusion first and then state the premises. This gives emphasis to the conclusion and also aids in showing the direction of our argument."' 4 If this be so, then we must say that the Njāya form of inference, in which the conclusion-to-be-proved comes first and the premises last, is the natural or actual form of reasoning But it should be remarked that the first proposition cannot be strictly called the conclusion, since a conclusion is what follows from certain grounds or premises. So it seems better to speak of it, like the Naiyāyika, as just a pratijñā or probandum, i.e. something to be proved This proposition stands out as the conclusion when it is seen to follow logically from certain other premises That there must be two such premises, viz. the major and the minor, all logicians would readily admit. And that there must also be a third premise to synthesise these two seems to be admitted only by a logician like Bradley" It will, however, be admitted by
1 Introduction to Logic, pp 255-66 ? Modern Introduction to Logic, pp 82, 84 3 Chapman and Henle, The Fundamentals of Logic, p. 98 4 Ibid 5 The Principles of Logic, Vol. I, p. 269.

Page #322

CLASSIFICATION OF INFERENCE
305
others that there is no logical necessity for any thinker to infer the existence of fire in a hill unless it is shown that the smoke in it is just that real natural smoke which is pervaded by fire. If the smoke in the bill be an illusion, like the mirage, then we cannot conclude that there is fire in the bill, although we may think that there is. So if there is to be no gap in the chain of reasoning that is to establish the conclusion, we are to have a third preroise to bring out the identity of the middle term in the preceding two premises. These three premises together with the conclusion and the probandum give us the five-membered form of the Nyāya syllogism which, therefore, seems to be both psychologically correct and more conclusive for demonstration.
39—(1117B)

Page #323

CHAPTER XIV
THE FALLACIES OF INFERENCE
1. Distinction between a valid and an invalid reason
In Indiau logic the fallacies of inference are all materia fallacies. So far as the logical forms of inference are con cerned, there can be no fallacy, since they are the same fo all valid inferences. An inference, therefore, becomes falla cious by reason of its material conditions The Nyāy: account of the fallacies of inference is accordingly limited to those of its members or constituent propositions, ani these have been finally reduced to those of the hetu or thi reason." For the purpose of proof an inference is made to consist of five members, namely, pratijñā, hetu, udāharama upanaya and nigamana As such, the valıdıty of an inference depends on the validity of the pratiñā and other constituent parts of it. If there is anything wrong with any of its members, the syllogism as a whole become fallacious. Hence there will be as many fallacies o inference as there are fallacies of its component parts from the first proposition down to the conclusion. So we may speak of the fallacies of the pratijñā, etc., as coming under the fallacy of inference (nyāyābhāsa). But it mus be admitted that the validity of an inference depend
I of The Aristoteliaa classification of fallacies into those in dictione and tho
mem This agrees with the Nyaya classification in excluding the form
distributed middle, illicit process, and so on, on the list of fallacies. a mnyāyābhāsa has been used by Vätsyāyana in a technical sense to mea 3 Ch 88 are opposed to preception and scriptural testimony (Vide Nyaya 4 The Jere, however, it is used in its literal sense to mean the fallacies 6 The

Page #324

THE FALLACIES OF INFERENCE
307
ultimately on the validity of the hetu or the reason employed in it. So also the members of a syllogism turn out to be right or wrong according as they elaborate a right or wrong reason. The fallacies of inference ultimately arise out of the fallacious reason. So the Naiyāyikas bring the fallacies of inference under the fallacies of the reason (hetvābhāsa) and consider a separate treatment of the inferential fallacies due to the propositum, example, etc. (pratijñābhāsa, dęstāntābhāsa) as unnecessary and superfluous.
Now the question is What is a fallacious middle (hetu)? How are we to distinguish between a valid and an invalid middle ? Literally speaking, hetvābhāsa or the fallacious middle is one that appears as, but really is not, a valid reason or middle term of an inference. It appears as a valid ground of inference because it satisfies some of the conditions of a valid middle term But on closer view it is found to be fallacious because it does not fulfil all the conditions of a valid ground of inference. As we have seen before, there are five conditions of the hetu or the middle term of an inferenee. First, the middle term must be a characteristic of the minor term (pakşadharmatā). Secondly, It must be distributively related to the major term, i.e. the major must be present in all the instances in which the middle is present (sapakşasattva). Thirdly, and as a corollary of the second condition, the middle term must be absent in all cases in which the major is absent (vipakşāsattva). Fourthly, the middle term must not relate to obviously contradictory and absurd objects like the coolness of fire, etc. (abādhitavișayatva). Fifthly, it must not itself be validly contradicted by some other ground or middle term (asatpratipakṣatua). Of these five conditions, the third does not apply to the middle term of a kevalānvayi inference,
1 Vede TR., p. 236; NM., p. 572. 9 Vide NV., 1.2.4.

Page #325

308
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
because it is such that no case of its absence or non-existence can be found. Hence, with regard to it we cannot say that the middle term must be absent in all cases in wbich the major is absent. Contrariwise, the second condition does not apply to the middle term of a kevalaryatireki inference, since here the middle term is always negatively related to the major term There is a universal relation between the absence of the middle and that of the major term. Of such a middle term we cannot siy that wberever it is present the major must be present. It is only in the case of anvayavyatuekı inferences that the middle term must satisfy all the five conditions Hence it has been said that a valid middle teim is one that satisfies the five or at least the four conditions as explained above! As contrasted with this an invalid middle term (hetvābhūsa) is that which violates one or other of the conditions of a valid ground of inference (hetu). It inay be employed as the hetu or the middle term of an inference, but it fails to prove the conclusion it is intended to prove. There are different forms of the fallacious middle according to the different circumstances under which it may arise. All fallacious middle terms have been classified under the heads of the saryabhucāra, viruddha, prakaranasama or satpratipaksa, sādhyasama or asiddha, kālātīta and būdhita. 2 Keśava Mısıa observes that the fallacies of definition such as ativyāptı or
1 Vide NSV , 1.2 4, NM . p 110
2 In both the old and the modern schools of the Nyāya, the inferential fallacies have been classified under five heads. The first four kinds of fallacies bear the same names or at least the game significance in both the schools The last kind of fallacy,
rever, is not only called by different names, but bears substantially different meanings in the two schools It 18 in view of this fact that I have taken the two Dames to stand for two kinds of fallacies of the middle term Hence we get sıx kpds of fallacies in place of the five enuinerated in the Nyāya treatises (Vide Nyaya-Sutra, 124; Tattvacintamani, II, p 778 ) In the Prábbākara Mimamsă the fallacies of the midille term are called the asadlarana, būdhita, sàdharana and asudha (vide Jha, Prabhākara Mimāṁsā, p 46) In Padārthadharmasamgraha the fallacies are called the Gerddha, viruddha, sardigdha and anadhyavasıta

Page #326

THE FALLACIES OE INFERENCE
309
'the too wide,' avyāpti or 'the too narrow' and asambhava or the false' also come under the fallacies of the middle term. 1
2. The fallacy of savyabhıcāra or the irregular middle
The first kind of inferential fallacy is called the suvyabhıcāra. In it the hetu or the middle term is found to lead to no one single conclusion, but to different opposite conclusions. This fallacy arises when the middle term violates its second condition, namely, that it must be distributively related to the major term. This condition requires that the middle term must be pervaded by the major term, or that the major must be present in all the cases in which the middle is present The savyabhicāra hetu, however, is not uniformly concomitant with the major term It is related to both the existence and the nonexistence of the major term. It is therefore called anarkāntıku or an irregular concomitant of the sādhya or the major terin. Hence from such a middle term we can infer both the existence and the non-existence of the major term.? Of such savyubhıcāra or irregular middle there are three kınds. namely, the sādhārana, asādhārana and anupasamhārī, The sūdhurana or the ordinary fallacy of the irregular middle occurs when the middle term is in some cases related to tbe major and in other cases related to the absence of the major. 8 This is illustrated in the following syllogism.
All knowable objects are fiery ; The hill is knowable; Therefore the hill is fiery.
1 Vide TB, 37. 3 Anaikāntikah savyabbicārab, NS, 1.2.5. 3 Sadbüranah sādhyayat tadanya vrttıb, etc, NSV., 1.2.5.

Page #327

310
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Here the middle term 'knowable' is indifferently related to both fiery objects like the kitchen, and fireless objects like the lake. All knowables being thus not fiery we cannot conclude that a bill is fiery because it is knowable. Rather, it is as much true to say that, for the same reason, the bill is fireless.
The second form of the savyabhucāra is called asūdhārana or the extraordinary. It is a peculiar form of the fallacy of the irregular middle. In it the middle term is related neither to things in which the major exists nor to those in wbich it does not exist. Hence from such a middle term we can infer neither the existence nor the non-existence of the major term. Or, such a middle term may be employed to prove both the existence and the non-existence of the major term. This is illustrated when one argues that sound is eternal because there is sabdatva or 'soundness' in it. Here the middle term 'soundness' is related only to the minor term 'sound.' It is found neither in eternal objects like the soul nor in other non-eternal things like the pot. Hence we do not know if soundness is universally related to the eternal or the non-eternal The middle term being undistributed one way or the other cannot lead to any valid conclusion.
The third form of the savyabhıcāra is the anupasamhāri or the indefinite.2 Here the middle term is related to a minor term that stands not for any definite individual or class of individuals, but indefinitely for all objects. Hence the distribution of the middle term cannot be proved either positively or negatively. To prove that the middle term is distributively related to the major we are to point out either the positive instances of their agreement in presence or the negative instances of their agreement in absence. Since, however, the minor term stands for all possible objects, we
1 Asadbäraneh sapakşavipakşavyavrttab etc., ibid.
Anvayavyatirekadrotāntarabito 'napasambärl, etc., T8., p. 56.

Page #328

THE FALLACIES OF INFERENCE
311
cannot go beyond them and get any case in which the middle coexists with the major, or the absence of the major is concomitant with that of the middle term. This is illustrated in the inference that 'all objects are eternal, because they are knowable. The validity of this inference depends on the validity of the major premise, namely, 'all knowables are eternal.' But the validity of the major premise cannot be proved, since beyond all objects we have no instances of the concomitance between the knowable and the eternal.
3. The fallacy of viruddha or the contradictory middle
There are two different explanations of the fallacy of viruddha According to the Nyāya-Sūtra' and Bhāşya, the fallacy of the viruddha consists in the opposition of one doctrine to a previously accepted doctrine, both belonging to the same system of thought. It is a contradiction betueen the different parts or doctrines of a system of plulosophy. As an example of this Vātsyāyana cites two contradictory statements from the Yoga-Bhāşya, namely, (1) that the world ceases from manifestation because it is not eternal, and (12) that even then it exists because it cannot be destroyed. ?
In the above sense the viruddha as a fallacy means the contradictions and inconsistencies involved in any school of philosophy. As such, however, it is not an inferential fallacy, but the fallacy of self-contradiction in which any theory or philosophy may be involved. Hence the first explanation of the liruddha as given above does not appear to me to be acceptable.
According to the later Naiyāyıkas, from Uddyotakara downwards, the hetu or the reason is called viruddha when
I Siddhantamabbyupotya tadvirodhi viruddhaḥ, NB, 1.2.6
Vide NB., 1.2.6,

Page #329

312
"
it disproves the very proposition which it is meant to prove." This happens when a middle term exists, not in the objects in which the major exists, but in those in which the major does not exist That is, the viruddha or the contradictory middle is that which is pervaded by the absence of the major term 2 The result is that such a middle term instead of proving the existence of the major in the minor term, which is intended by it, proves its non-existence therein. It contradicts and sublates the pratyña or the proposition which it is employed to prove and establish Thus if one argues sound is eternal, because it is caused,' we have a fallacy of the viruddha or the contradictory middle. The middle term caused does not prove the eternality of sound, but its non-eternality, because all that is caused is noneternal. Hence the distinction between the fallacies of the savyabhicara and the viruddha is that while in the former the middle term is universally related neither to the existence of the major nor to its non-existence, in the latter the middle term is universally related to the non-existence of the major term. As a consequence of this, the savyabhicāra or the irregular middle only fails to prove the conclusion, whereas the viruddha or the contradictory middle disproves it or proves the contradictory proposition.
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
4.
The fallacy of prakaranasama or the counteracted middle The third inferential fallacy is called the prakaranasama. Literally, it means a reason which similar to the point at issue (prakarana). We have a point at issue when there are two opposite views with regard to the same subject, both of which are equally possible, so that they only give rise to a state of mental vacillation as to the truth of the matter.
1 Pratijñāhetvorva virodhaḥ etc, NV., 1, 2 6
2 Sadhyābhāvavyāpto heturviruddhaḥ etc., TS., p. 57.

Page #330

THE FALLACIES OF INFERENCE
1
Now when a middle term does not go further than producing a state of mental oscillation between two opposite views we have a case of the prakaranasama middle. This happens when one reason seeks to prove the existence of the major in the minor, but there appears some other reason to prove the non-existence of the major, and both of them are found to be equally strong Here the opposed reasons counteract each other, but neither can sublate the other They may indeed be employed as the middle terins of an inference, but each being neutralised or counterbalanced by the other (satpratipaksita) fails to establish a sure conclusion and is therefore fallacious Hence the prakaranasama is also called satpratipaksa or that which is opposed by an equally strong hetu or middle term. This is illustrated in the following arguments: 'sound is eternal, because the properties of the non-eternal are not found in it'; and sound is non-eternal, because the properties of the eternal are not found in it.' Here both the inferences are fallacious, because there is nothing to distinguish between the two middle terms leading to opposite conclusions. The two middle terms being counteracted by each other cannot lead to any definite conclusion and we are left with the same question with which we started, namely, whether sound is eternal or non-eternal. The fallacy of the prakaranasama is distinguished from that of the savyabhicāra by the fact that while in the latter one and the same character of the minor is taken as a middle term that may lead to opposite conclusions, in the former two different characters of the minor are taken as the middle terms leading to opposite conclusions. It is also distinguished from the viruddha or contradictory middle which by
(
313
1 Yasināt prakaran acinta sa nirnayārthamapadistaḥ prakarana sumaḥ, N8, 1.2. 27 Yasya pratipaksabhutaṁ hetvantaran vidyate sa prakaranasamah, sa eva sat. pratipakṣaḥ etc., TB, p. 36.
2 Vide NB, 1, 2, 7.
40-(1117B)

Page #331

314
itself proves the opposite of what it is intended to prove, while here the opposite conclusion is proved by a different middle term (hetvantara).1
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
5. The fallacy of asiddha or the unproved middle
The fourth kind of fallacy is called the sadhyasama or the asiddha. The word sadhyasama means a middle term which is similar to the sadhya or the major term. The sadhya is a character which we want to pro ve in relation to the paksa or the minor term. Hence the sadhyasama stands for a middle term which requires to be proved as much as the major term. This means that the sadhyasama middle is not a proved or an established fact, but an asiddha or unproved assumption. The fallacy of the asiddha occurs when the middle terin is wrongly assumed in any of the premises and so cannot be taken to prove the conclusion. It follows that the premises which contain the false middle become themselves false. Thus the fallacy of the asiddha virtually stands for the fallacy of false premises, which is a form of the material fallacies in Western logic.
2
There are three main forms of the fallacy of asiddha, namely, (2) the aśrayāsiddha, (u) svarūpāsiddha and (un) vyāpyatvāsiddha. Of these, the aśrayāsiddha is a middle term which has no locus standı. One condition of a valid middle term is that it must be present in the minor term. The minor term is thus the locus of the middle. Hence if the minor term is unreal and fictitious, the middle cannot be related to it. The result is that the minor premise, in which the middle is related to an unreal minor, becomes false. This 18 illustrated in the inference the sky-lotus is
6
8
1 Vide NSV., 1 2.6
Sadbyāvisiṣṭaḥ sadhyatvät sädhyasamaḥ, NS 1 2 8 3T8., p. 58; TB., p. 81.

Page #332

IHE FALLACIES OF INFERENCE
315
fragrant, because it belongs to the class of lotus.' Here the minor term 'sky-lotus' is unreal, so that the middle ' class of lotus' cannot subsist in it. The middle term having no locus standı, we have a fallacy of the aśrayāsiddha or the baseless middle. '
The svarupāsiddha is a middle term which cannot be proved to be real in relation to the minor term. It is a middle term which is not found in the minor term. 2 The existence of the middle in the minor being unreal, the minor premise which relates it to the minor term becomes false. Thus if one argues 'sound is eternal, because it is visible,' he commits this fallacy. Here the middle term 'visible' is wrongly assumed in the minor term 'sound' and is not justified by facts. If the minor term stands for a number of things and the middle is found in some but not all of them, we have the fallacy of bhagasiddha or ekadeśāsiddha. To illustrate the four kinds of atoms of earth, etc., are eternal, because they are fragrant.' Here the middle fragrant' is related only to a part of the minor term, namely, the atoms of earth, but not to the other kinds of atoms. Hence the middle term is partly false and so equivalent to the star upasiddha middle. The fallacies of bhāgasiddha or ekadeśasiddha are therefore included within the fallacy of svarupāsiddha. It includes also such other fallacies as (1) viseṣaṇāsiddha, where the middle term has a false adjunct, as when one argues 'sound is eternal, because being a substance it is intangible,' while sound is not a substance but a quality; (u) viśesyāsıddha, where the middle is an unreal substantive of a real adjective, e.g. 'sound is eternal, because it is an intangible substance'; (iii) asamarthavıśeṣaṇāsiddha, where the middle has an
6
1 There are two kinds of this fallacy, viz. asatpakṣa and siddhusadhana. The first is explained above. The second means a middle which seeks to prove a proved or undoubted fact, e g. a body has li nbs, because it is 80 perceived.' Cf. TM., Ch. II.
TS., & TB., ibid.

Page #333

316
NYAYA TH CORY OF KNOWLEDGE
unineaning adjunct, e g. 'sound is eternal, because being a quality it has no cause,' in which the adjunct being a quality' has no force ol sense in the argument; (10) asamarthavišesyāsiddha, where the middle is an unmeaning substantive of a significant adjective, c 9 'sound is eternal, because it is an uncaused quality,' m which the adjective 'uncaused' renders the word 'quality' quite superfluous !
The vyāpyatvāsiddha is a middle term whose concomitance l'pāptı) with the major cannot be proved ? A valıd middle terin must be universally related to the major term. In a middle term is not known to be universally concomitant with the major, it becomes invalid The result is that the major premise which should express il yāpti or a universal relation between the middle and major terins becomes materially false. The fallacy of the lyāpyatāsiddha may arise in two ways It may be due to the non-concomitance of the middle term with the majoi, as in the mfcience 'all reals are momentary, sound is a real, therefore sound is momentary.' Here the major premise is false, because there is no universal relation between the 'real' and the 'momentary Or, it may be due to the presence of an upūdhu oi condition, on which the relation between the middle and major ternis depends. Here the iniddle term is not, as it should be, unconditionally related to the major and is, therefore, lalse. It is illustrated in the inference the hill is a case of smoke, because it is a case of fire' This inference is invalıd, because the relation of the middle term 'fire' tu the major 'sinoke’ is conditional on its being 'fire from wet Tuel.'' This fallacy of the conditional nuddle is technically called anyathāsiddha.
1 Vide TB, pp 31-35. 2 Vyāpyatvāsiddhastu su eva yatia helor vyāpurnāvagainyate, Ibid. 3 TB, p 35. 4 Vide NVT ,P 345.

Page #334

THE FALLACIES OF INFERENCE
317
6.
The fallacies of kālātīta and bādhita or the mistimed
and contradicted middles
The kālātīta literally means a middle term which is vitiated by the lapse of time 1 In this fallacy the middle teim consists of two or more events which succeed one another in time. But on the analogy of the given example, these events must be simultaneous if the middle term, constituted by them, is to prove the conclusion. Since, however, they are successive, the middle term becomes mappropriate m the order of time and is therefore called kālātīta or the mistimed middle. It is illustrated in the interence 'sound is durable, because it is manifested by conjunction, like colour.' The colour of a thing is inanifested when the thing comes in contact with light, although the colour Custs before and after the contact. So also, it is argued, sound wluch is manifested by the contact between two things (samyogavyangya) inust be durable, i.e exist before and after the contact. But the argument is fallacious because its middle term is vitiated by a limitation in time. In the case of colour the manifestation takes place simultaneously with the contact between light and the coloured object. The manilestation of sound, however, is separated by an interval of time from the contact between two things. In fact, we hear the sound when the contact between the two has ceased. Hence it cannot be due to the contact, because when the cause has ceased, the effect also must cease. The middle term being incongruous with the given example fails to prove the conclusion and is therefore fallacious. In this sense the kālātīta means a middle term which is subject to different conditions in the two premises
1 Kālātyayapadıştah kālātītah, NS , 1 29.
% Kālātyagena yukto yasyårt hasyarhadeso' padisyamāpasya sa kālātīta ..... udābaranasādharmyasyābb&vādasādhanamayam, NB., 1.2 9.

Page #335

318
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
of the syllogism As such, it becomes a kind of fallacy that corresponds to the fallacy of accident in Westeru logic.
According to a second interpretation, the halātīta is the fallacy of a wrong order of the different members of the syllogism. It is illustrated when there is an inversion of the natural order of the pre nises and the conclusion, as when we put the premises after the conclusion. On this view, the kālātīta corresponds to the fallacy of hysteron proteron. But this view of the matter is not accepted by the Naiyāyikas. A change in the order of the members of a syllogism does not really affect its validity nor render it fallacious. Further, such a change does not involve a fallacy of the middle term or an inferential fallacy It constitutes a defect in the method or procedure and is, therefore, described as the clincher of the inopportune (aprūptakāla nigrahasthāna). 1
Although the fallacy of the būdhıta bas been treated by some writers as another name for that of the kālūtīta, yet it seems to me better to distinguish between the two in view of the sharp contrast in their meanings While the kālātīta stands for a middle terın vitiated by a limitation in time, the būdhita means a middle term which is contradicted by some other source of knowledge (pramānāntarena) A middle term is contradicted when it leads to a conclusion, the opposite of which is proved to be true by some other pramāna. This is illustrated by the argument 'fire is cool, because it is a substance' Here the middle term
substance,' which seeks to prove that fire is cool, is contradicted because we know from tactual perception that
1 Ibid It should be remarked bere tbat although it be usoal in a syllogism to put the premises before the conclusion, yet that 18 neither logically necessary por psychologically correct It 18 now generally recognised by logicians that a syllogism may take another form in which the conclusion comes first and the prardises follow it Hence we see that a change in the usual order of the propositions in a syllogism involves neither the fallacy of hysteron proteron por the clincher of tbe inopportune.

Page #336

THE FALLACIES OF INFERENCE
319
fire is not cold but hot. The fallacy of satpratıpakşa, as explained before, is different from this fallacy of bādhita because in the former one inference is contradicted by another inference, while in the latter an inference is contradicted by a non-inferential source of knowledge.
7. The fallacies of chala, jāti and nigrahasthāna
Apart from the fallacies of inference, the Naiyāyıkas deal with certain other fallacies which occur in connection with the art of debate. These are called chala, jāti and nigrahasthāna. The fallacy of chalu consists in using the same word to mean different objects in the course of a debate. It thus corresponds to the fallacy of ambiguity in Western logic. It is of three kinds, namely, vākchala, sāmānyachala and upacāruchala. In vākchala or the fallacy of cquivocation the same word is used in different senses. This is illustrated when one man says 'the boy is navakambala' (possessed of a new blanket), and another objects
he is not nava-kambala (possessed of nine blankets). In sāmānyachala the same word is taken to mean an individual and the class to which it belongs, e.g. one man says this Brahmin is a learned man,' and another objects all Brahmins are not learned men' In upacārachala or the fallacy of figure of speech, a confusion is made between the figurative and literal senses of an expression, e.g. when one says' the scaffolds cry out,' and another objects 'scaffolds cannot cry.'?
Jāti is the fallacy of irrelevance. In it a futile argument is based on some irrelevant consideration which does not really prove the conclusion. There are twenty-four kinds of jāti or futile arguments. The first is called sādharmyasama,
1 Vide TB., p. 37, TS., pp. 58-60. 2 Vide NS. & NB., 1 2.10-14,

Page #337

320
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
where an argument is based on some kind of similarity between two things, e.g. 'sound is eternal because it is incorporeal_lıke the sky.' The second is cardharmyasama, where an 'argument is based on some kind of dissimilarity between two things. The ulharsasama, apakarsasama, varnyasama, ararnya sama, izkalpasama and sādhyasama are futile arguments in which the character of the minor tem or the example is altered or they are unduly assumed without sufficient reason The prāptısama and aprāptisama are futile objections based on the wrong implications of the coexistence between the nuddle and major terms or their absence The pasangasama and piatidrsțāntasana are sutile objections based on the ground that the given example has not been proved by a series of arguments, or that there is a counter-example The anulpattısama is an objection based on the ground that the middle tein of the given argument cannot exist in the minor term before it comes into existence. The samśayasama is an objection based on the doubt arising from a middle tem wth opposite examples. The praharanasama is an objection based on the ground of a middle tem which is related to both the sides of a contioversy. The ahetusama is an objection which is based on the ground that the middle term is unintelligible in the three orders of time The arthāpattisama is an argument based on mere presumption The 11 28e sa sama is an argument to prove the identity of all things on the ground of their having existence in common. The upapattısania is an objection based on the ground that there is a counter-argument to the guien aigument The upalabdhisama is the objection to a given argument based on the ground that we can perceive the truth of the conclusion even without the argument. The anupalabdhisama is an argument to invalidate a given argument from non-perception, on the ground that non-perception cannot be perceived. The nityasama is an argument to prove the eternality of all non-eternal

Page #338

THE FALLACIES OF INFERENCE
things on the ground that they are eternally non-eternal. The anityasama is an argument to prove the non-eternality of all things on the ground of their resembling a non-eternal thing in some respect or other. The karyasama is an argument opposed to a given argument from the nature of an effect, on the ground that an effect may have very different natures, and so cannot be taken to lead to a single conclusion. 1
321
The nigrahasthāna, which literally means a ground of defeat, is a fallacy which is due either to a misunderstanding or to the want of understanding. It is said to be of twentytwo kinds. These are: pratijñāhāni or weakening one's proposition by adducing such examples as run counter to it; pratijñāntara or shifting the proposition; pratijñāvirodha or contradicting the proposition; pratijñāsannyāsa or renouncing the proposition; hetvantara or shifting the ground; arthantara or shifting the topic; nirarthaka or the meaningless statement like abracadabra; avijñātārtha or the unintelligible statement; aparthaka or the incoherent statement; aprāptakala or the wrong order of the parts of an argument; nyūna or the suppression of any part of an argument; adhika or the duplication of the middle term or the example; punarukta or the meaningless repetition of any part of an argument; ananubhāṣana or the refusal to answer a question; ajñāna or ignorance of the proposition; apratibha or the inability to give a reply to the argument; viksepa or evasion of the argument; matānujñā or admission of the defect in one's argument; paryyanuyojyopekṣana or overlooking a defect in the argument ; niranuyojyānuyoga or finding fault with the faultless apasiddhanta or the deviation from an accepted position; and hetvābhāsa or the fallacy of the middle term. 2
;
1 Vide NS, 1 2.18, 511 ff
2 Vide NS, 1.2 19; 521 ff.
41-(1117B)

Page #339

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
It will appear from the above that some of the fallacies of chala, jāti and nigrahasthāna come under the inferential fallacies, while others are eitber semi-logical or nonlogical fallacies. These relate either to the meaning of words and propositions, or to the conduct of the parties concerned in any discussion. Hence any elaborate account of these three kinds of fallacies with their many subdivisions is not necessary in connection with the Nyāya theory of inference.

Page #340

BOOK IV
UPAMANA OR COMPARISON

Page #341


Page #342

CHAPTER XV
THE NATURE AND FORMS OF UPAMANA
1. The Nyaya definition of upamāna
The word upamana is derived from the words upa meaning sūdrsya or similarity, and māna meaning cognition. Hence upamāna derivatively means the knowledge of the similarity between two things. This derivative meaning, however, requires certain qualifications in order to give a complete definition of upamāna. As a pramāna, upamāna is the source of our knowledge about the relation between a word and its denotation (samiña-samñisambandha) 1 We have such knowledge when first we are told by some authoritative person that the word denotes a class of objects of a certain description and, secondly, finding some objects of that description we recognise them as denoted by that word. The description of the unknown objects denoted by the word is generally given in terms of their similarity to some familiar object of experience. Hence upamana is generally defined as the ground of our knowledge of a thing from its similarity to another thing previously well-known. 2 Thus a man, who does not know what a gavaya or wild ox IS, may be told by some forester that it is an animal like the When next he meets with such an animal in the forest, he knows that it is the gavaya. But the description of the unknown objects denoted by a word may also be given in terms of their dissimilarity to certain known objects or
COW.
1 Saujāsamjisambandhajñānamupamitiḥ etc., T8., p. 62.
3 Vide NS. & NB., 1.1.6

Page #343

326
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
their peculiar properties. Hence upamāna or knowledge by comparison is not always due to the knowledge of similarity or dissimilarity between things. The knowledge of similarity or dissimilarity is an accidental character of this or that kind of upamāna. What, however, is common to all cases of upamāna is the knowledge of the denotative relation between a word and a certain class of objects. Hence the Naiyāyikas finally define upamāna as the process of reasoning by which we know that a word denotes a certain class of objects on the basis of some authoritative statements
Analysing the process of reasoning in upamāna we get the following steps. First, we have an authoritative statement (atideśavākya) that a word denotes objects of a certain description, e.g the gavaya is like the cow.' Secondly, when one observes any such object, be has the knowledge that it answers to the given description (sādrsyadhi). Thirdly, there is a recollection of the descriptive statement received from authority (vākyārthasmrti). Lastly, there is the resulting knowledge that this kind of objects is denoted by the word in question (upamiti) 2 Thus a man, who does not know what objects are denoted by the word gavaya, may have it from some authority that the word denotes animals resembling the cow. When next he happens to find such animals, he perceives their striking similarity to the cow. Then he remembers the authoritative statement that animals resembling the cow are gavayas. With this he comes to the conclusion that the word 'gavaya' denotes this class of animals.
It may here be asked : Which of the four factors mentioned above is the karana or operative cause of the knowledge derived from upamāna or comparison ? It cannot
1 Vide NV. & NSV., 1.1.6. 1 Vido BP., 79-80.

Page #344

NATURE AND FORMS OF UPAMANA
327
obviously be the last, since that is the resulting cognition, of which we want to know the principal cause. According to the older Naiyāyıkas, the first factor, namely, the descriptive statement of some authority is here the karaņa or special cause of the knowledge of denotation of words. The modern Naiyāyikas, however, hold that the perception of similarity, etc., is the special cause whose function (vyāpāra) is to revive in memory the authoritative statement and thereby lead to the knowledge in question. A man recognises a gavaya as such just when he perceives its similarity to the cow and remembers the statement the gavaya is an animal resembling the
cow.' 1
2. The Jaina, Mīmāṁsā and Vedānta views of upamāna
According to the Mīmāmsā and the Vedānta, upamāna is the source of our knowledge of the likeness of things. In some cases we may get the knowledge of likeness froin perception, as when we perceive a gavaya and know it to be like the cow. From the perceived likeness of the gavaya to the cow we next know that the cow is like the gavaya, although the cow is not now perceived by us. This latter knowledge of the likeness of the unperceived cow to the perceived gavaya is due to upamāna or comparison. It cannot be due to perception, since its locus, namely, the cow is not now perceived, but only remembered. It is no doubt conditioned by the perception of likeness in the gavaya. But when from this perceptual knowledge of likeness we pass to the knowledge that the cow, not now perceived, is like the garaya, it is no longer perception. Nor is this second knowledge of likeness due to inference. In inference the pakṣa or the minor term is an object of perception and the linga or the middle term is present in the pakşa. In the alleged inference
1 Vide NM., pp. 141.42.

Page #345

328
of the cow's likeness to the gavaya, the paksa, i.e. the cow cannot be an object of perception, and the linga, i.e. the likeness of the gavaya would be present not in the paksa 'cow,' but in the gavaya. Further, when from the one likeness we know the other, we are not conscious of any inferring, but of comparing. Introspection tells us that the actual process of reasoning involved in the second knowledge of likeness is not inferential Similarly, when we perceive a horse and know it to be unlike the cow, our knowledge of the unlikeness is perceptual. But when from this we conclude that the cow, not now perceived, is unlike the horse, we depend, not on perception and inference, but on upamana or comparison Thus the Mimāmsaka and the Vedantist admit that there is a perceptual element in upamana. But they go further and prove that the reasoning about likeness and unlikeness, based on some perception, cannot be fully explained by perception or inference. It constitutes an independent source of valid knowledge (pramāna), to which they give the name of upamana
The Naiyayikas criticise and reject the above view on the following grounds First, they point out that it violates the ordinary rule of upamana or comparison In all cases of upamana we compare the unfamiliar object with something well-known in order to understand it better. In the above view the well-known cow is compared with the strange garaya But this cannot give us any new knowledge about the cow which is already too well-known to us. Secondly, the knowledge of the cow's likeness may be explained by memory and so does not require a separate source of knowledge like upamana. When we perceive the gavaya we are reminded of the cow and not of other things. The reason is that there are certain points of resemblance between the two and that these were previously perceived
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
1 Vide SD, pp 74-76; VP., Ch III.

Page #346

NATURE AND FORMS OF UPAMANA
with the perception of the cow. Hence we have a memory of the cow as that which was previously perceived to have some resemblance with the garaya which is now perceived. Hence there is no need for an independent pramāna called upamana to explain the knowledge of likeness and unlike
1
ness
It is to be observed here that Nyaya criticism has so far very little force It is true that we ordinarily understand an unfamiliar object by comparing it with what is familiar. But this does not prevent us from comparing the familiar with what is new and unfamiliar Nor does it invalidate our subsequent knowledge of the former as like or unlike the latter Further, we cannot say that all knowledge of likeness is memory A man who has seen a gavaya may, when perceiving a cow, know its similarity to the gavaya. It is possible only for him to remember that a cow was found to be like a gavaya at the time when he perceives the gavaya. But a man who has never seen know that a cow is similar to it. a gavaya suggests to him that the gavaya is like the cow, we cannot say that he only remembers the cow's likeness, since there was no previous perception of it
329
42-(1117B)
a gavaya cannot When the perception of cow is like it because the
The Naiyayika is perhaps conscious of the weakness of his first two arguments and so brings forward a third one to supplement them. He thinks that even if upamana be different from memory, we may very well explain it as a form of inference. From the perception of the gavaya we know that it has some points in common with the remembered cow. This leads to the inference that the remembered cow is like the gavaya, because it has some points in common with the gavaya. The Vedantist's upamana is thus reduced to a mediate syllogistic inference:
1 Vide NM., pp 146-47

Page #347

330
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
“Whatever has certain points in common with another thing is like that thing; the remembered cow has some points in common with the perceived gavaya; therefore it is like the gavaya."
The Naiyāyika seems to be on strong ground when he reduces the reasoning about likeness and unlikeness to inference. The Vedāntist's upamāna, when analytically considered, deals with our knowledge of the relations among correlative terms. Ordinary syllogistic interence is concerned with the relations of subject and predicate among different terms. But there are other relations which furnish grounds of inference. These are the relations among correlative terms The doctrine of correlation (pratiyogitra) and the relations of correlative terms have been much elaborated in the modern Vyāya. There are two kinds of correlation, namely, abhāvapratiyogitia or the correlation existing between a te 1 and its contradictory, and satpratiyogitra or the correlatin ?11-ng between relative terms. The relations among colla lictory terms like A and not-A, red and not-red we the grounds of immediate inferences by conversion, obversion, contraposition, etc. The correlations among relative terms are the grounds of both mediate and immediate inferences There are different types of such c relation. Bradley ? enumerates four types of these relations. These are (1) The synthesis of identity, eg A is the father of B, B is the son of A; or, A is the brother of B, and B of C, then A is the brother of C (2) The synthesis of degree, eg. A lo greater than B, B is less than A ; or, A is hotter than B, and B than C, therefore A than C. (3) The synthesis of time, eg. A is earlier than B, B is later than A ; or, A is a day before B, B contemporary with C, therefore C a day after A. (4) The synthesis
1 Vide NM., p. 148. 2 Bradley, Logic, Vol I, pp. 264.66

Page #348

NATURE AND FORMS OF UPAMANA
331
of space, e.g. A is north of B, B is south of A ; or, A is north of B and B west of C, therefore C south-east of A. The Vedāntist's upamāna deals with the correlations of likeness and unlikeness which, following Bradley, we may call the synthesis of comparison It consists in reasoning from the proposition ' A is like B’ to the proposition ‘B is like A’; 01 from 'A is unlike B' to ' B is uplıke A' It is really a kind of immediate inference. But there being no such thing as immediate inference in Indiau Logic, the Naiyāyikas put it in the form of a syllogism which bas the additional advantage of testing the validity of such reasoning. .
The Jainas do not recognise upamāna as an independent source of knowledge, but include it under prutyal,hijñā or recognition They understand pratyabhijñā in a very wide sense so as to cover all such cases of knowledge as this is that object,''this is like that,' 'this is unlike that,' this is at a distance from us,'' this is a free,' etc. It is clear from this that pratyabhijñā here stands for any knowledge which is conditioned by perception and memory The Teasoming from the proposition 'the gavaya is like the cow,' to the proposition the cow is like the gavayu 'is not a case of upamāna, but of pratyabhuîā, since it can very well be explained by the perception of likeness in the gavaya and memory of the cow. So also the Naiyāyika's upamāna as a source of the knowledge of denotation of words is, according to Jainas, a case of pratyabhijñā or recognition. The knowledge of the likeness or unlikeness through which we recognise an object is given by perception. The knowledge of the object as a cow oi a garaya is due to the recollection of their description as supplied to us by some competent person?
It is to be observed here that the Jaina view of upamāna
1 Prameyahamalamatanda, pp 97-104)

Page #349

332
a wrong
as a form of pratyabhijñā or recognition rests on assumption. They seem to think that a knowledge is explained when we explain the constituent parts of it. But to explain the component parts of knowledge is not to explain knowledge itself. To say that it is so is the fundamental error of all associationist theory of knowledge. If it were really so, the Jaina view of pratyabhijña itself as a distinct type of knowledge will have to be discarded, since it is constituted by perception and memory. On this assumption we may reduce all kinds of knowledge to perception, since the constituents of all knowledge ultimately come from perception. That we recognise other kinds of knowledge than perception is due to the fact that the combination of elements derived from perception involves new principles which take us beyond perception. We shall consider hereafter if the Naiyayıka's upamāna involves any new principle of combination so as to justify us in treating it as a new kind of knowledge.
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
3. The classification of upamana
Upamāna was at first regarded as only of one kind, namely, as the knowledge of a thing as denoted by a word through its similarity to a well-known object of experience. Later Naiyayikas, however, distinguished between different kinds of upamāna, according as they are based on the knowledge of dissimilarity between things, or on that of their peculiar properties Thus the Naiyāyikas generally recognise three kinds of upamana or knowledge by comparison, namely, sadharmyopamāna, vaidharmyopamāna and dharmamatropamāna. '
In sadharmya-upamāna we start from the description of an unknown object given in terms of its similarity to a well
1 Vule TH & 98, pp 86-88

Page #350

NATURE AND FORMS OF UPAMANA
333
known object by some authoritative person. If then we find any object or objects that answer to the given description, i.e. are similar to the things they are compared with, we know that they belong to this or that class. Here then we apply a class-concept to certain facts on the basis of some obsei ved similarity between them and other known facts. The concept is given to us and the facts to which it applies are selected by us This kind of upamāna is illustrated in the citizen's application of the name gavaya to the wild oxen because they are found to satisfy the description of the gavaya as an animal similar to tbe cow.
In vardharmya-upamāna the objects denoted by a word are described in terms of their contiast or dissimilarity to some well-known objects of experience. This negative description enables a man to recognise certain objects as denoted by a word or as belonging to a certain class in so fai as he finds that they fit in with the given description. This 1» illustrated when a man recognises certain animals as belonging to the class of horses because, unlike the cow, they have no cloven hoofs
In dhai mamātia-upamūnu the objects denoted by a name are described in terms of their peculiar attributes or any combination of attributes which is peculiar to them. This description enables us to discriminate the things denoted by the name from all other things and consequently apply the name to just that class of things. This is illustrated when from the description of 'man' as a cooking animal or of the harabha as a long-necked animal with projecting lips and feeding on thorns, we recognise the animals denoted by these words It may be observed here that these three kinds of upamāna are illustrated also by medical students when they collect herbs and plants according to the descriptions given of them in the materia medica.
Viúvanātha in his Nyāya-Sūtra-Vrtti mentions another hund of upamūna which is slightly different from the above

Page #351

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
three. Here upamāna consists, not in the knowledge of the denotation of a word, but in that of some unknown property of an object through its similarity to a known thing. Thus if on hearing that a certain herb resembling the mudgaparnī is an antidote and then finding such a herb we conclude that it is an antidote, our knowledge is due to upamāna or comparison.'
It is sometimes beld that the Naiyāyika's upamāna is an analogical argument There are two facts that lend colour to this view First, the Nyāya-Sūtra defines upamāna as ibe knowledge of an object (sūdhya) from come recognised similauty between two things (prasıddhasādharmyāt) Secondly, the last kind of upanānu mentioned by Visvanātha very closely approximates an analogical reasonmg when from the observed assemblances between tll things we argue to the presence of some unobserved property in one of them. But from the Nāya account of upamāna a given above it wll appear that it does not Teally cor respond to an analogical argument In analogy we infer one resemblance from other esemblances, eg when we say A resembles B in having the properties I and y, therefore it resembles B in having the property z But in upamāna ne argue as much from resemblance as from contrast and p.cuharity Further, upamāna leads not to the knowledge of re-emblance between things, but to that of the denotation of a word, or to the application of a name to a class of objects Even the special kind of upamāna mentioned by Visvanātha is not a knowledge of reseinblance, but is the identification of an object from a given description
1 Vide Nyāya-Sutra-Vrtti and Nyaya-Sutra-Vivaruna 116
334

Page #352

CHAFTER XVI
UPAMĀNA AS AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE
OF KNOWLEDGE (PRAMANA)
1. Can upamāna gue us any valid knowledge ?
With regard to the Nyāya view of upamāna it has been urged by the Cārvākas that it cannot give us any true knowledge about the denotation of words as maintained by the Naiyāyikas. In it we are to know the objects denoted by a word from their similarity or dissimlarity to certain wellknown things or from their peculiarities. But mere resemblance or difference without any universal relation cannot be the ground of a certain conclusion In the stock example of sādharinya-upamāna, we are to know that a certain animal must be a gavaya because it is similar to the cow. If the similarity between thu two be perfect, then they become identical with each other Hence on the ground of such perfect similarity it is as much true to say that the animal is a cow as to say that it is a garaya II, on the other hand, the similanty be semi-perfect or considerable, then the word gavaya may be taken to denote buffaloes in so far as they are considerably similar to the cow If, again, the similarity be imperfect or slight, there is nothing to prevent the application of the name garaya to cats and dogs in so far at least as they are animals like the cow Similarly, any description of a class of things in terms of then dissimilarity to certain well-known things or in those of their peculiarities does not always help us to recognise them as such-and-such, or know them as denoted by this or that word. This shows

Page #353

336
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
that upamāna or mere comparison between things is not a valid source of knowledge.'
Now the Naiyāyikas meet the above sceptical argument against the validity of upamāna in two ways. First, they point out that the argument rests on a misunderstanding as to the real nature of upamāna or comparison as a method of kn )wledge It is not the case that when upumāna is based on similarity it is committed to one of the three (degrees of pörfect, semi-perfect ou imperíect similarity Far from this being so, it has been expressly laid down that the similarity must be one that has an accredited bearing on the subject in question (prasiddha). The similarity must be essential and requisite, and serve as sufficient ground for the recognition of a class of things is denoted by a word Ipamāna or comparison as a source of knowledge operates through suh observed similarity or dissimilarity as is rooted in things and limits the denotation of a word to them As a matter of fact, there is no such rule that the similarity must be of a particular degree as perfect or semi-perfect or imperfect. What particular sort of resemblance is meant by the similarity in question depends on the special circumstances of the case and the context in which an argument through comparison occurs As such, the given description in terms of similarity, etc, makes a selection of its own objects and brings them under a class-concept or a name in the light of our previous experience. In the stock example, the judgment 'this is a garaya' is brought about, not by the degree of the similarity between the cow and the wild ox, but by the suggestiveness it has acquired in relation to our past and present experiences. It is this suggestive character of the similarity that restricts the denotation of the word gavaya to the wild ox and excludes the buffalo and the like. Secondly, the Naiyāyikas do not deny that upamāna some
1 Vide N8. & NB., 2.1.42.

Page #354

UPAMANA AS INDEPENDENT PRAMANA 337 times leads to wrong judgments, e.g. the judgment of a buffalo as a gavaya. But then this difficulty is not peculiar to upamāna. All of our perceptions and inferences are not ipso facto valid. Still we recognise perception and inference as valid sources of knowledge. If so, there is no reason why we should deny that upamāna is a valid source of the knowledge of some objects. The wrong judgments of comparison may, like those of perception, be explained as due to the wrong application of a right principle and not to the logioal principle itself.
2. Can upamāna be reduced to any other pramāna ?
Admitting that upamāna is a valid source of knowledge (pramāņa), it may be pertinently asked : Is it an independent source of knowledge, irreducible to any other ? This question has been answered in the negative by some systems of Indian philosophy These systems reject the Naiyāyika view of upamāna as an independent method of knowledge We have already considered the attempt made by the Jainas to reduce it to pratyabhijñā or recognition. In some other systems the attempt has been made to reduce it to perception or inference or testimony. Hence the Naiyāyikas discuss the question of reducing upamāna or comparison to some other pramāņa.
According to the Buddhist logicians upamāna is a valid but not an independent source of knowledge. It can be explained as a combination of perception and verbal testimony. There are two factors in upamāna, namely, the knowledge of the similarity or dissimilarity between two classes of things and the knowledge of the fact that things of a certain class are denoted by a certain word. As to the first factor we see that it is obviously given by perception.
1 Vide NB & NVT, 2 1 43. 43-(1117B)

Page #355

338
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
When we see two things together we perceive that they are similar or dissimilar to each other. As to the second factor, namely, the knowledge of the denotation of words, it is derived from the statements of authoritative persons, i.e. testimony. Hence upamāna need not be given the status of an independent source of knowledge. Now the Naiyāyikas point out that the Buddhist contention rests on a complete misunderstanding of the real nature of an argument by upamāna or comparison. The vital point in upamāna is neither the perception of similarity nor the verbal knowledge of the denotation of a word, but the recognition of certain objects, not known before, as belonging to a class ; and denoted by a class-concept. The similarity of those objects to other things may be perceived and the classconcept may be given by testimony. But the application of the concept to a particular class of things cannot be due to perception or testimony. Hence upamūna cannot be reduced to perception and testimony."
In the Sārkhya ? and the Vaisesikasystem upamāna is explained as a form of inference. It is here admitted that the Naiyāyika's upamāna is neither the perceptual nor the verbal cognition of the similarity between two objects, e.g. the cow and the gavaya. On the other hand, upamāna really aims at the knowledge of the denotation of a word or class-concept. But this can very well be explained as due to inference. Analysing the Naiyāyıka's upamāna we get three component factors. First, there is the communication of some knowledge about the denotation of a word by authoritative statements. This is obviously a case of knowledge from testimony and is in the form of the sentence the word gavaya denotes animals resembling the cow. Secondly, there is the observation
1 Vade NV, 1.16 2 Vide Tattoakaumudi and Avaranavärini, 5, 3 Vide PS, p. 109.

Page #356

UPAMANA AS INDEPENDENT PRAMANA
339
of a certain animal resembling the cow. This gives us a knowledge of the animal's similarity to the cow, which is undoubtedly perceptual in character, since it is due to sense-object contact. Thirdly, there is the knowledge that the word gavaya denotes animals of the same class as this particular animal now observed. This last cognition is wrongly supposed by the Naiyāyikas to be due to upamāna But it is really an inferential cognition based on the knowledge of vyāpti or a universal relation between the word gavaya and animals resembling the cow. The inference may be put in the form of the following syllogism :
All animals resembling the cow are gavayas ; This is an animal resembling the cow ; Therefore this is a gavaya.
As against the above attempt to reduce upamāna to inserence, it has been pointed out by the Navyāyikas that the knowledge of the denotation of a word, which upamāna aims at, is possible without the knowledge of vyāptı or a universal relation between two terms. An argument by upamāna or comparison does not consist in an inductive generalisation and its application to a new case. It consists in the application of a class-concept to some objects because they fit in with a given description. Upamāna being thus possible without the knowledge of vyāpti cannot be reduced to inference which is never possible without a knowledge of vyāpti or universal relation between two things. Further, there is an unmistakable difference between the forms of the cognitions in inference and upamāna. In upamāna the resulting cognition is always expressed in terms of likeness, etc., while an inferential cognition is expressed in terms of the relation of ground and consequence. In inference the introspective consciousness is a feeling of the 'therefore

Page #357

340
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
relation,' while in upamāna it is a feeling of similarity, etc. In upamāna we are not conscious of inferring but of comparing. Inference is distinguished from perception because our cognitions are distinctly different in the two cases. Just for the same reason upamāna must be distinguished from perception, inference and testimony."
3.
Conclusion
The question discussed in the Nyāya theory of upamāna is this. How do we know the denotation of a word or a class-name? There are various ways in which we may know it. In the first place, the objects denoted by the word gavaya may be pointed out to us by any person who knows its denotation and we may be told that these objects are denoted by the word. In this case we know the denotation of the word from direct testimony, because here in the presence of the denoted objects we are told by some authority. These are the objects denoted by the word gavaya.' But it is not always possible for us to know the denotation of words from direct testimony, for we cannot always be brought to the presence of the denoted objects and told that they are denoted by such and such words. There are, however, other ways open to us to know the denotation of words. We may know the denotation of a word from its accepted definition or from a description of the objects denoted by it. Thus from the definition of the word 'man' as a rational animal we understand what animals are denoted by it. Similarly, from the description of the garaya as an animal resembling the cow, we can recognise the class of animals called gavaya. Now the question is : What is the nature of the process of knowledge involved in our
63, Dinakari and Ramarudri on
1 Vide Tarkasangraha-Dipikä-Prakāśa, p Siddhantamuktavali, pp 354-55.

Page #358

UPAMANA AS INDEPENDENT PRAMANA
341
understanding the denotation of words in this latter way ? Is it perception or inference or testimony or any combination of these ? According to the Nyāya, it is a distinct method of knowledge called upamāna or comparison. It is no doubt true that the process involves an element of perception and testimony. The definition or the description comes to us as a spoken or written statement of some authority and, as such, is but a form of testimony. Similarly, we know by perception that certain objects possess the attributes or characteristics included in the definition or the description. But from this we cannot conclude that the process involved in the knowledge of those objects as denoted by a word is a combination of perception and testimony. To explain the elements of a knowledge is not to explain the knowledge itself, if it has a distinctive character of its own. Perception does not become ideation because it involves certain ideas and images. So too inference cannot be reduced to perception and testimony even though it includes certain elements derived from them. For the same reason the process of knowing the denotation of a word should not be reduced to perception and testimony, since they explain certain elements of the process but not the process itself. The next question is · Can we not explain the knowledge of denotation by an inference ? This can be done if we show that the knowledge of denotation follows as a conclusion from a universal proposition as major premise through the mediation of the minor premise. Now the knowledge of the denotation of a word can be deduced, at least theoretically, from a universal proposition like 'all animals resembling the cow are gavayas.' But to show that the denotation of words can be known by inference is not to show that it is actually so known. When we know the denotation of a word we do not argue syllogistically from premises to the conclusion, but simply compare certain facts with a given description. To know that these facts fit in with the description require

Page #359

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
a selective activity of the mind which is distinct from perception, inference and testimony. Hence we conclude with the Naiyāyıkas that upamāna or comparison is an independent source of our knowledge of the denotation of words.
312

Page #360

BOOK V
SABDA OR TESTIMONY

Page #361


Page #362

CHAPTER XVII
THE NATURE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SABDA
1. The Nyaya definition of sabda and its different kinds
Sabda literally means verbal knowledge. It is the knowledge of objects derived from words or sentences. All verbal knowledge, however, is not valid Hence sabda, as a pramāna, is defined in the Nvaya as valid verbal testimony It consists in the assertion of a trustworthy person.' A verbal statement is valid when it comes from a person who knows the truth and speaks the truth about anything for the guidance of other persons. But it is a
2
matter of common observation that a sentence or statement is not by itself sufficient to give us any knowledge of things. Nor again does the mere perception of the words of a sentence lead to any knowledge about objects. It is only when one perceives the words and understands their meanings that he acquires any knowledge from a verbal statement. Hence while the validity of verbal knowledge depends on its being based on the statement of a trustworthy person, its possibility is conditional on the understanding of the meaning of that statement Hence sabda or testimony as a source of valid knowledge consists in understanding the meaning of the statement of a trustworthy person.
8
It will appear from the above definition that the first step in sabda or testimony is the perception of the words of a sentence or proposition set forth by so'ne trustworthy person.
1 Aptopadeśaḥ sabdaḥ, NS, 1.1 7
2 Vide TR, pp. 94-95.
3 Vide BP. & SM, 81 Cf Vakyarthajñānam sabdajñānam, TS
44-(1117B)
P 73

Page #363

346
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
In the case of a spoken sentence we have an auditory perception, and in that of a written sentence we have a visual perception of the constituent words. Secondly, there must be an understanding of the meaning of the words perceived by us. It is through this understanding of the meaning of words that we come to the final step, namely, the verbal knowledge of objects or the truth about certain objects. Thus the karana or the special cause of sabda or valıd verbal knowledge is the knowledge of words (padajñana), which leads to the knowledge of objects through its function (vyāpāra) of recalling to our minds the meanings connected with words or sentences.' Thus sabda is distinguished from the preceding praiānas by the fact that it is due to the knowledge of words or sentences, while perception is due to sense-object contact, inference to the knowledge of vyāpti or universal relation, and upamāna or comparison to the perception of similarity or dissimilarity.
There are two ways in which all verbal knowledge has been classified in the Nyāya system According to Vātsyāyana, verbal knowledge is of two kinds, nimely, drstārtha or that relating to perceptible objects and adrstārtha or that relating to imperceptible objects. ? 'l he first is limited to tbe ordinary sensible objects of this world, while the second relates to supersensible objects which cannot be known by means of perception Under the first head we are to include the trustworthy as-ertions of ordinary persons, the saints and the scriptures in so far as they bear on the perceptible objects of the world. Thus the evidence given by witnesses in law courts, the knowledge about plants that we get from a reliable farmer, the scriptural injunctions about certain rites and ceremonies for rainfall, birth-control and the like are illustrations of dịşțārtha sabda. The second will include
1 Padajñāoarn to karanam dvaram tatrs pad&rthadhih, ctc , BP & SM , 81. 3 Sa dvividbo dystādretártbatvāt, NS & NB, 118,

Page #364

NATURE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SABDA
347
all the trustworthy assertions of ordinary persons, saints, prophets and the scriptures in so far as they bear on supersensible realities. Thus the scientist's assertions about atoms, ether, electrons, vitamins, etc., the prophet's instructions about virtue and vice, the scriptural texts on God, heaven, future life and the like are illustrations of adrstārtha sabda.
According to the later Naiyāyikas, there are two kinds of sabda or verbal testimony, namely, vaid ka or the scriptural and laukika or the secular. In the first we have the words of God. The Vedas are created by God and are therefore valid on all points. Vaidika or scriptural testimony is thus perfect and infallible by its very nature. As distinguished from this, laukika or secular testimony is not all valid. It is the testimony of human beings and may therefore be true or false. Of laukika testimony, only that which proceeds from trustworthy persons is valid, but not the rest." It will be observed here that wbile the first classification of sabda depends on the nature of the objects of knowledge, this second classification has reference to the nature of the source of knowledge in testimony. All Naiyāyikas, however, agree in holding that testimony must always be personal, ie based on the words of some trustworthy person, human or divine In respect of truth or validity there is no difference between the trustworthy assertions of an ordinary person, a saint, a prophet and the scriptures as revealed by God.
2. Other systems on the nature and forins of sabda Of the other systems of Indian philosophy, the Cārvāka, Bauddha and Vaiseșika do not recognise sabda or testimony as a distinct pramāņa or source of knowledge. According to
1
Vākyam dvividbam, vaidikam laukikañca, etc., TS., p. 73,

Page #365

348
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
the Cārvākas, there is no logical ground or justification for our believing in anything simply on the statement of another person. If it were so, we shall have to believe in many absurd and fictitious objects about which any fool may tell us. If, however, śabda or testimony be constituted by the statement of a trustworthy person, it is only a case of inference from the character of a man to the truth of bis assertion. But inference cannot be accepted as a valid source of buman knowledge. Hence śubda or testimony should not be recognised as a prumāna or valid method of knowledge. According to the Buddhist logiciany, sabda is not an independent source of knowledge, but a form of perception or inference If by śubda we mean to prove that the person who makes a certain statement is trustworthy, we reduce it to inference. If, however, we use it to prove that there are actual facts corresponding to a statement, we reduce it to perception ? According to the Vaišesikas, subda as a form of knowledge is to be included in inference, since the ground of our knowledge is the same in both. Just as up, înference we know an unperceived object from the perception of something which is related to it, so in sabda from the perception of words we know the objects which are unperceived but related to the words perceived by us. 8
In the Jaina system śabda is recognised as a separate pramāņa or source of knowledge It consists in the knowledge derived from words which, when properly understood, express real objects and are not inconsistent with the evidence of perception. It is called laukika or secular testimony when the words come from an ordinary reliable person of the world. It is called śāstraja or scriptural testimony when it proceeds from a liberated self of extra
1 Vide Sarvadarsanasangraha, Chapter I 3 Vide SC Vidyabhūyana's History of Indian Logic, pp. 287-88 3 Vide Ps., pp 106-8, V8, 92 3.

Page #366

NATURE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SABDA
ordinary powers and knowledge, and relates to supersensible realities. Thus while in the Nyaya system scriptural testimony depends on divine revelation, in the Jaina it comes from the perfected and omniscient finite self. In the Samkhya-Yoga system too we find a recognition of sabda or testimony as a valid method of knowledge. But while in the Samkhya, scriptural testimony is regarded as impersonal and therefore possessing self-evident validity, the Nyaya takes it as neither impersonal nor self-evidently valid. It holds that the scriptures have been created by God and require to be proved by reason as much as any other form of knowledge. According to the Mīmāmsā system, sabda as a pramana consists in the true knowledge of objects, derived from the understanding of the meaning of a sentence. It is called pauruseya or personal when constituted by the words of trustworthy persons, and apauruṣeya or impersonal when constituted by the words of the Vedas. The Prabhakara school of the Mīmāmsā, however, takes sabda to mean only vaidika or scriptural testimony about the existence of super sensuous realities 4 According to the Vedantists, sabda or agama as a source of valid knowledge consists in sentences or propositions which assert a certain relation between things, that is not contradicted in any way. It is a verbal knowledge of objects, which is not validly contradicted by any other knowledge. While this is implied in the Nyaya definition of sabda, there is some difference between the Nyaya and the Vedanta with regard to the nature of vaidika or scriptural testimony. According to the Nyaya, scriptural testimony is personal, since the Vedas have been created by the supreme person
3
5
1
2
349
1 Vide Prameyakamala, pp 112 13
2 Vide Tattrakaumudi and Avaraṇavārini, 5, Yoga-Bhāsya, 1.7
3 Vide SD, p 72
4 Vide Jha's Prabhakara School of Purva-Mimäinsä, p. 52
5 Vide VP, Chapter IV

Page #367

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
or God. For the Vedānta, it is impersonal inasmuch as God does not create but only reveals the contents of the Vedas, which are eternal truths independent of God. So also the Mimāmsakas look upon the Vedas as a system of necessary truths or eternal verities which are independent of all persons and therefore purely impersonal in character. For the Naiyāyikas, the Vedas as a system of truths embody the will of God. They express the eternal reason of the divine being in the order of time.
350

Page #368

CHAPTER XVIII
OF WORDS (PADA) 1. Sounds and words
In the last chapter we have seen that sabda as a pramāņa consists in sentences or propositions put forth by some trustworthy person. Now a sentence is a group of words (pada) arranged in a certain way. To understand a sentence (vakya) we have to understand its constituent words. Hence we propose to consider here the nature and meaning of words, as well as other questions in connection with the understanding of words.
Sabda literally means sound. In linguistics it means also words or sentences. A word is a particular kind of sound. So also a sentence is a group of sounds arranged in a certain order. How then is a word related to ordinary sounds?
According to the Nyaya, sound is a physical phenomenon. It is the attribute of an intangible and all-pervading substance called ākāśa or the ether. Air is not the substratum of the quality of sound, but the medium of its transition from one place to another. Sound is a product of the conjunction of two bodies or of the disjunction of the parts of one composite body. It is therefore non-eternal or subject to origin and cessation in time. The Mīmāmsakas here controvert the Nyaya position and hold that sound is eternal, since it is not produced, but only manifested by the contact of two bodies. It is unnecessary for our present
1 Vide TB, pp. 26-27.

Page #369

352
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
purpose to enter upon the long controversy between the Nyāya and the Mīmāṁsā on this point."
Sound is of two kinds, namely, dhrani and varņa.? A dhvani is an inarticulate sound, e.g. the sound of a bell or a drum. It is a confused mass of sound-sensations having no order or arrangement of its parts. It has no fixed nature of its own, nor any fixed relation to other like sounds. Dhvani is thus incapable of forming parts of any language. On the other hand, a varna is a sound produced by the action of the vocalorgan of human beings, e.g. the alphabet. A varna is a letter which has a fixed character and a definite place in the alphabet of any language All varnas or letters are constituents of human speech. They may be either spoken or written. Spoken letters are auditory sensations of significant sounds, while written letters are visual sensations of coloured figures. From the standpoint of linguistics, the cries of birds and beasts, and even of newborn babies are dumb and inarticulate They are as variable and disorderly as sounds produced by physical things. These do not lend themselves to any use as parts of any language. Hence they are included within dhvani and not made a separate class
A word is a group of varnas or letters arranged in a certain fixed order. The order of the letters in a word cannot be changed or reversed in any way without altering its meaning. Thus the word 'cow' is a grouping of the letters C-o-w in the given order If we change this order we destroy the word itself. Similarly, the words 'won' and' own,' which contain the same letters, become different because the fixed order of the letters 18 different in the two cases. While a letter is a significant sound, a word is a symbolic sound of a higher order. A letter signifies only
1 Vide NM., pp 205-32 2 Sabdo dhoanisca varnasca, etc , BP, 164 65

Page #370

OF WORDS
353
a part of the alphabet, bụt a word stands for some thing or some idea. Like letters, words may be either spoken or written. A spoken word is the object of auditory perception and a written word that of visual perception. Thus words are symbolic sounds constituted by letters arranged in a definite order. A word is not a mere collection of letters, but a definite whole of letters or syllables which are its parts and have a fixed order in the whole. It is a unity of the parts in so far as it is the object of a single cognition.' The question as to how the constituents of a word are synthesised so as to form one whole, will be considered later on.
2. Words and their meanings A word is defined as a group of letters arranged in a fixed order. This definition, however, has in view the existence or the constitution of a word The essential nature of a word lies in its meaning. Logically a word is a sound that bears a certain ineaning. The meaning of a word consists in its relation to the object which it signifies. A word may have different meanings according to the different ways in which it may be related to an object. According to the Naiyāyikas, there are three kinds of meaning of a word, namely, abhidhā, paribhāṣā and lakṣaṇā. Let us here consider these different kinds of meaning of a word.
By abhidhā is meant the primary meaning of a word. It is also called sakyārtha, vācyārtha and mukhyārtha. The relation between a word and its meaning may be either samketa or laksanā. Samketa is the direct relation between a word and its meaning, such that the knowledge of the
1 Padam ca varpaga mübah, etc , TB, p 14
3 C padam ca varnagamübah' (Tarkabhäsä, p. 14), "Gaktain padam' (Tarka sangraha, p. 64). 3 Vide Sabdasaktı-prakäśıkā, Introduction (C. U. Edo.)
45—(1117B)

Page #371

354
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
word leads immediately to the knowledge of its relation to that meaning. Now saṁketa or the direct relation betweer a word and its meaning may be either eternal or non eternal. When eternal and unchanging, it is called sakti oi the inherent potency of a word Thus the relation betweer the word jar and the object called jar is a direct and eterna relation called sakti This saktı or potency of a word is due to the will of God that such and such a word should mear such and such an object. According to the Mimāmsakas the saktı of a word is its natural relation to the object whicl it signifies Just as fire possesses the power of burning, so words possess a natural potency to mean certain thing independently of the will of any person. The Naisāyikas however, contend that the relation between a word and it: meaning is not a natural but conventional relation. Wher the relation is established by God it is called sakti, and when it is due to the usage of inankind it is called pari bhāsā. Now the meaning called up by the saktı or inheren potency of a word is its abhidhā or sakyūrtha, i e. primary meaning. The word which possesses such a meaning 1: called a sakta or vacaka word?
When samketa or the direct relation between a word and its meaning is non-eternal or changeable, it is called pari bhāṣā. This is due to the will of the authorities in any science that such and such a word should mean such and such an object. The meaning called up by the conventio established by authorities is the paribhāṣita or technica meaning of a word. Words which bear such meanings arı Called pāribhāşıka or technical words, eg. the word 'article' in grammar, 'premise' in logic, court' in law "category' in philosophy. ?
By lukṣaṇā is meant the secondary meaning of a word
1 Vide T8 and TD , p. 64, Sabdašakti-prakåska, pp 55 f. 7 Vide Sabdabaktı-prakäsikā- pp, 54-55,

Page #372

355
then
P
(
(
It is the indirect or implied meaning in which we should understand a word when its direct or primary meaning does not consist with other words or the context. A word indirectly means an object when it is related to it because of its direct relation with something else with which the object is somehow associated. When we are told the house is on the Ganges,' we take the Ganges' not in its primary meaning of the current of water,' but in the secondary meaning of 'the bank of the Ganges.' Here the secondary meaning is suggested through its association with the primary meaning There are three kinds of lakṣanā or secondary meaning, namely, jahallaksana, ajahallakṣaṇā and Jahadajahallakṣaṇā. In jahallakṣaṇā, no part of the primary meaning is retained, e g. 'the scaffolds cry out.' In ajahallaksanā, the primary meaning of a word is also retained_in the implied meaning, e.g a blue jar' meaning a jar with the attribute of bluenes In jahadajahallakṣaṇā, a part of the primary meaning is retained, while another part is discarded, e.g. this is that man," meaning the identity of the inan leaving out the attributes of 'this' and 'that '1 The Naiyayikas do not admit with the Vedantists that not only words but sentences also may have secondary meanings (lakṣaṇā).
2
OF WORDS
6
The alamkarikas or thetoricians recognise another kind of meaning of words, namely, ryañjana. This stands for such meanings of words as are neither directly or indirectly related to them, but only suggested by them. Thus the sentence, the house is on the Ganges, mean that the house is cool and sacred. This meaning is called vyañjana or the suggested meaning The Naiyayi kas do not recognise yañjana as a different type of th meaning of words, but include it within sakti and lakṣaṇā
may be taken to
1 Vide Sabdaśakti-prakāśikā, pp 59 f Vide also Tatti adīpikā, p. 67. 2 Vide VP, Ch IV, Sabdaśakti-prakäsikā, pp. 61 f

Page #373

NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
356 or the primary and secondary meanings. The vyangyārtha or suggested meaning of a word is really inferred from its primary and secondary meanings and is not separate from them."
How do we learn the meanings of words? There are different ways in which we may learn them First, we learn the meanings of the radicals, verbal roots, suffixes, etc., from grammar. Secondly, we know the meanings of certain general names by means of upamāna or comparison, as when we know the gavaya from its similarity to the cow. Thirdly, we learn the meanings of words from dictionaries Then we may know the meaning of certain words from authority, as when a connoisseur tells us that such and such objects are denoted by a certain word. Or, we may know it by induction from the different uses of words by authoritative persons, as when we know the meaning of the word cow from the different uses made of it by our elders in relation to a particular kind of animal. Or, we may know the meaning of a word from its context, as when the chair' means the chairman'in a meeting Or, we may know it from a given explanation, as when we understand a word from any of its synonyms Finally, we may know the meaning of a word from its application in connection with a familiar word, as when we understand the meaning of the word pika from the sentence the pika is crying cuckoo on this tree'?
That there are so many different ways of knowing the meanings of words proves that the relation between words and their meanings is not a natural but a conventional relation. If there were a fixed natural relation between a word and its meaning as between fire and burning, then the word should have always coexisted
1 Vide Tattoadipika, P 68, Sabdaśakti-prakāśika, pp 64 f
Saktigcabam vyākaraṇopamāna,' etc , 8M, pp 359-72 prakābıkā, 20
Cf
Sabdabaktı

Page #374

357
6
with the object signified by it and we should have known their relation simply by perception. But a word does not coexist with the object denoted by it. The word fire does not coexist with the object fire' and produce any burning sensation in us when we utter the word. Nor do we perceive the relation between a word and its meaning in the same way that we perceive the relation between fire and burning. Further, the conventional character of the relation between words and their meanings is evidenced by the different meanings in which the same word is used by different people. The variation in the meanings of words cannot be explained on the hypothesis of a natural relation between words and their meanings. It appears also in the use of different words to mean the same thing, e.g. aqua, water, jala. The convention (samaya) that such and such words should mean such and such objects is established by God where the relation between words and their meanings is a fixed and eternal relation called saktı or denotation. It is established by human beings living in a society where the relation between them is a changeable relation called paribhāṣā or lakṣaṇā.1
Words are divided into four kinds according to the different ways in which their meaning is determined. A word is called yaugika or etymological when its meaning is solely determined by those of its component parts, e.g. the word dātā or giver meaning one who gives. It is called rūḍha or conventional when its meaning is determined by the whole independently of the part meanings, e.g. the word go meaning, not one who goes, but the cow. Some words are called yoga-ruḍha or etymologo-conventional when the meaning determined by the whole agrees with that determined by the the parts, e.g. the word pankaja meaning a water-lily which grows in the mud.
OF WORDS
1 Vide NB 2 1 54 & 55, Sabdaśakti-prakāśikā, ibid

Page #375

358
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Lastly, certain words are called yaugika-rūdha or etyinological conventional when then meanings are determined either by the potency of the whole or by those of the parts, e.g. the word udbhid meaning a germ or the sprouting of a seed or a sacrifice.
3. The import of words
What is the pumary m'aning of a word ? Does a word mean an individual (vyaktı), oi a particular form (ākrti) or a universal (jāti)? There are different views about the import of words These bave been expluned and examined by Vātsyāyana in the Vyāya-Bhāsya
According to some thinkers, including the Samkhyas, a word denotes an individual object (cyahtı). ? By an individual is meant a composite material b dy possessing specific properties. It is a sub-tance which has a lunited dimension and may have such qualities as smell, taste, colour, touch, etc It is manifested and open to sense perc'ption. It follows from this that the principle of individuation is materia signata or quantitatively determmed matter and the individual must have a manifest body (mūrti). 8 That such individual objects are denoted by words is evident from the established usage of mankınd When we use such expressions as 'that cow stands,'' a herd of cows,'
he gives a cow to the Brahmin,' etc, we evidently mean the individuals called cows. Such expressions cannot refer to the genus or the universal 'cowness,' sinc: the universal is one and eternal, and so cannot be specified as this or that, or spoken of as a collection of miny objects. Further, if words do not by themselves mean individuals, we cannot
I Vide SM , pp 381-86 2 Vide NS & NB , 22 57, Vicaranaprameyusamyrala, p 181 3 Vyaktırgunnvasesāśrayo tourtih, NS , 22 64 Vrde also NB, bed

Page #376

OF WORDS
359
explain their reference to individual objects by any process of transference of meaning.
The Naiyāyikas reject the above view of the import of words. If a word mean an individual as such, then any word could mean any and every individual. A word, however, does not mean any individuals, but the individuals of a certain class. In such expressions as that cow stands,' etc., what is meant by the word cow is not the mere individual by itself but the individual as distinguished by the generality of cowness. Hence it is not true to say that words denote individuals only. Although words do not, by themselves, mean individuals, yet they may refer to individual objects by reason of the individuals' association or connection with the primary meaning.'
The second view about the import of words, which is accepted by the Jainas and others, is that a word denotes the particular form or configuration of individuals.? The form (ākrtı) of a thing consists in the particular arrangement of its component parts and the constituent particles of those parts “The form of a thing is that wbich indicates the generality and its characteristics." Things are distinguished from one another by their peculiar forms. The cow 18 differentiated from all other animals by its form which consists in the collocation of the dewlap, etc. Words di note objects only as they express their forms or configurations in spice, by which their nature is determined. Hence a word must primarily mean the form or the structure which determines the individuality of an object. The Naijāyikas reject this view also on the ground that the form by itself is not sufficient to constitute the nature of a thing. The clay model of a cow is not what we mean by a cow, although it possesses the form of a cow. Hence a word should not be
1 Vide NS. & NB., 2.2. 58.69. 2 Vide V10oranaprameyasangraha, p. 181.

Page #377

360
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
taken to mean only the form or the physical shape of an individual apart from its generality or class-essence ?
In view of the above difficulties in the individualistic' and the configuration theories, the Mimāmsakas and Ve lāntists propose a third theory, according to which a word means the genus or the class-character of individuals. The genus is the basis of similar cognitions with regard to different in livi luals. It gives us a comprehensive knowledge of miny things as sunilar in essential points. Worils primarily mean such universals or genera as distingmush the particulars of experience. 2 If a word were to mean the individual, then it must have as many meanings as there are individuals meant by it. This, however, goes against the law of parsimony which requires that a word should have one primary meaning Although words primarily mein universals, there is nothing to prevent them from referring to the individuals. We know the individual at the same time that we know the universal, because these are inseparable in respect of both knowledge and existence. Or, it inay be said that while the universal is the primary meaning of a word, the individual is its secondary meaning (lakşaņā). Thus the word blue primarily means 'blueness' as a universal, but in the phrase "the blue pot’it means, by implication, the individual with the attribute of blue colour. In the same way, although the word cow means 'cowness,' yet by implication it means the individual possessed of the generic attribute of cowness."
According to the Naiyāyikas, words do not mean universals only, since these cannot be understood apart from the individuals and their particular formas A genus can be recognised only through the individuals that constitute it and their peculiar configurations. Hence the true view is that a
1 Vide NS. & NB, 2.2.60-61 , 2.2.65 2 Vide NS & NB. 2.2 61 ; 2 2.66 8 Vide VP., Cb'IV; SD., Ch. J.

Page #378

361
1
word means all the three, namely, the individual, the confi guration, and the generality. It cannot be said that a word directly means the universal and indirectly the individual, for it has only one primary meaning. The universal, the individual and the form enter into the full meaning of a word which does not exclusively mean any of them. All the three factors are present in the meaning of a word in the same way, though with different degrees of prominence. Hence if in actual usage we do find only one factor to be evident, that is not because the other two are absent but because we are not interested in them for the nonce. When we are interested in the difference or distinction of one thing from others, what we do is to emphasise its individuality in the meaning of the word used for it, e g. when we say that cow is standing.' But when we want to stress the unity or similarity of things, we give prominence to the generality as a factor in the meaning of the word used, e g. when we say 'the cow is eternal.' Thus the old Naiyayikas conclude that every word means the universal, the individual and some particular form, and that one of these is predominant, while the rest are subservient factors in the meaning of a word. 2 Among the mode.n Naiyayikas, however, some hold that a word means an individual as characterised by the universal (jātıvısıṣtavyaktı), while others maintain that it means an individual as qualified by both the universal and the configuration (jatyākṛtivisiṣṭavyaktı). It follows from this that there are three aspects in the meaning of a word, namely, a pictorial, a denotative and a connotative. A word calls up the form, denotes the individual, and connotes the genus or
3
OF WORDS
1 Vide NS & NB, 22 62-63
8 Vide NB, 22 63
3 Vide Dinakari on Siddhantamuktavali, 81
4 Vide SM, 81, Sabdaśakti-prakasha, 19 Cf L. S Stebbing, Modern Introduction to Logic, p 500 "The demonstrative symbol means its denotation, ie, it stands for the object denoted, whereas the descriptive phrase means the properties and not the objects (if any) denoted "
46-(1117B)

Page #379

362
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
the universal. Every word will therefore be connotative in so far as it means the generic properties of the individuals denoted by it. Indian logic thus leaves no room for the socalled non-connotative terms of Formal Logic in the West.
4. The unity of words and the hypothesis of sphota
A word is a group of letters waving a certain meaning. The letters composing a word have a definite order of succession among them We perceive the constituent letters one after the other But the letters or syllables composing a word cannot mean anything by themselves. Letters and syllables bear a meaning only when they are combined into one whole called a word to put the same thing m a different way, a word means an object when it is perceived as the unity of a number of letters or syllables Thus the word cow means a particular kind of animal when the letters C-0-0, are perceived and formed into the unity of one word Hence the question arises How are the letters and word combined into one whole ? Is the unity of the word due to a synthesis of perception or memory or the intellect or soinething else ?
According to the Naiyāyıkas, the letters composing a word cannot be simultaneonsly perceivert We can perceive only one thing at one instant Hence the letters of a word must be successively perceived by us But in the order of succession when one is present, the others are either past or future How then can there be a synthesis of them all into one word ? The Naiyāyıkas hold that it is by means of memory. It is true that we perceive the different letters one after the other But when we come to the last letter, the impressions of the preceding letters are retaineil in our roind. Hence the perception of the last letter as aided by the impressions of the preceding letters presents the word as a whole of many letters, and its meaning is
ANNIS

Page #380

OF WORDS
363
understood according to convention. Thus the word 'cow' is perceived by the auditory sense all at once when it becomes related to the last letter and is aided by the impressions left by the preceding letters, although they are past. The unity of a word is thus explained by the Naiyāyikas as due to memory and association between the letters composing it. According to the Vedāntist, it is due to the synthetic activity of the intellect. The separate experiences of the constituent letters come to us successively, but they are synthesised into the perception of one word by the intellect that holds together these experiences (samustapratyavamarsinī buddhi). 2
The above explanations of the unity of a word as due to the synthesis of memory or the intellect involve certain difficulties for which the grammarians propose the theory of the sphota When we perceive the last letter of a word, we have no perception of the preceding letters. All that we can have at that inoment is a memory of this or that preceding letter, but not of all. Strictly speaking, the Naiyāyikas cannot allow more than one cognition, a perception or an image, to be in the mind at one moment. Even if it were possible for us to have the impressions of all the preceding letters, they will serve to give us a knowledge of those letters by way of memory, but not of the thing signified by a word. Then the Vedāntist simply vissuines that the intellect bolds together the experiences of all the letters, but does not show how these fleeting and successive experiences can be simultaneously present before the same intellect. In truth, a word is not a unity, but a seues of successive sounds called letters. These letters cannot be unified into the experience of one word which, therefore, cannot signify an object. All that the series of
1 SM , 82, TB., p 11. 3 Vide Samkara-Blänya and Brämati, 1 3 28.

Page #381

364
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
letter-sounds does is to manifest one inarticulate soundessence called sphoța which is the real unity of a word and brings about the cognition of the object said to be meant by the word. Like the genus, the sphoța is an eternal essence which is common to all the utterances of a word. Corresponding to every word there is such a sphota or sound-essence which is gradually unfolded by the letters of a word. When a particular word is uttered, its sphoța or unitary principle is manifested and that directly presents the meaning of the word. Hence the sphota is the real word that means an object and there is no such thing as a word of letters meaning things.'
The theory of sphota has been justly repudiated by many right-thinking philosophers The sphota is not only, as Thibaut remarks, a grammatical fiction, but is also useless as an explanation of the unity of words. It has been severely criticised and rejected by Sarkara, Kumārıla, Vācaspati and others? It cannot be denied that words mean objects and that they consist of letters or syllables arranged in a definite order. When a thing is expressed by a word, all that we perceive are letters and no sphoța Even if there be such a thing as the sphota, we do not understand how it can mean an object when it is gradually unfolded by the letters of a word. If a series of successive sounds called letters cannot form a single word, how can the successive stages of the manifestation of the sphoța or sound-essence be synthesised into a unitary whole? The theory of the sphota does not bring us nearer the solution of the problem as to how there can be a simultaneous perception of successive facts as we find it in the perception of a word. Neither the Naiyāyikas nor the Vedāntists give a satisfactory answer to this question. They forget that a synthesis of the letters
1 Vide NVT, 2 2 57; Sankara-Bhagya, 1 8 28
? Vide Sarkara-Bhasya, 1.3 28, NVT, 2 2 57 ; Sastradipika, pp 95-97.; Sloka. vårttıka, pp 610-44

Page #382

OF WORDS
in a word by memory or the intellect is not the direct knowledge that we mean by the perception of a word. The Naiyāyikas were forced to draw this conclusion by their view of the mind as atomic and therefore incapable of having more than one cognition at one instant Had they fully realised the implication of their view of the present' as a block of time comprising several instants, they could have easily solved this problem. As many modern psychologists like James, Titchener, Royce and others have shown, our present consciousness is not like an indivisible mathematical point, but is extended like the saddle-back. It has a span or duration of its own. It extends both backward into the past and forward into the future. Hence in the present consciousness we may have a nurober of successive facts, although that is very limited in our case Thus there is a simultaneous perception of all the letters of a word, although these are successively read or heard by us Hence we conclude that the unity of a word is due to the synthesis of perception and not of memory or anything else 1
i Vide Jumer. Principles of Psychology, Vol 1, pp 608-10, Titchener, Text-Book of Psychology, p), 341, Royce, The World and the Individual, II, .
365

Page #383

CHAPTER XIX
OF SENTENCES (VĀKYA)
1
The construction of a sentence
A sentence (tūkya) is it combination of words having a certain meaning Any combination of words, however, does not make a signvicant sentence. The construction of an intelligible sentence must conform to four conditions. These are āhānhsā, yogyatā, sanndhi and tātparyya.'
By ūhūnksā or expectancy is meant that quality of the words of a sentence by which they expect or imply one another. A void cannot by itsell convey a complete meaning. It inust be brought into relation with other words in order to espressa full julgment 2 When one hears the word 'bring' uttered before him, he at once it-ks what?'. The verb 'bring has a need for some other words denoting some object or object, eg. the jar' In the absence of such words, it has no meaning and falls short of a complete judgment. Similarly, a word in the nommative case requires a verb to convey a complete meaning. Generally speaking, the ākānksā or expectancy of words is the relation between kriyātra and kūrakatia, the verb and the caseendings implied by it." When I say 'dog,' horse,'
cow,' 'man,' etc., I simply utter a string of names which do not imply one another and cannot therefore constitute a sentence. The reason is that there is no kriyātva and
1 Vide BP, 82 i l'adagya padāntara vyutirekaprayuktănanvayanabubhāvakutvumākánkna, T8 , p 72 3 Vide SM , pp 423 , TC, IV, pp 218 1,

Page #384

OF SENTENCES
367
1
66
kārakatva between these words in the strictly grammatical sense. In some cases, however, we may have a sentence without the relation of kriyātva and kārakatva between its constituent words, e.g. so 'yam Devadatta." In the case of the relation of identity the ordinary conditions of knyatva and karakatva are not necessary Still, we cannot deny the expectancy of the words in an identity proposition. The words imply each other in so far as one means the same thing as is meant by the other. When we say 'this is that Devadatta,' the 'this' and the that' mutually imply each other. According to the Vedantist, there is ākānkṣā or expectancy between words, not only when one actually implies the other, but may possibly imply it. Thus when I say 'bing the cow,' one may ask what kind of cow ?' Hence the word cow may imply adjectives like black, old, etc. There cannot be a significant sentence unless its terms are thus capable of implying one another.2
6
The second condition of the combination of words in a sentence is then yogyata or mutual fitness. It consists in the absence of contradiction in the relation of the objects denoted by a sentence. When the meaning of a sentence is not contradicted, there is yogyatā or fitness between its constituent words. The sentence moisten with fire' (agnina siñcet) is wanting in fitness because there is a contradiction between fie and moistening Hence there must not be any incompatibility between the meanings of the different words so as to render the whole sentence itself meaningless. Some modern Naiyay ikas do not consider the knowledge of fitness to be a necessary condition of verbal knowledge. According to them, what prevents the understanding of a sentence is the knowledge of the incompatibility between its words. As such, we may very well have
1 Vide TB, p. 13.
VP, Ch IV.

Page #385

368
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
& verbal cognition only if we are not aware of any inconsistency between the words of a sentence. We do not require a further knowledge of their consistency or fitness with one another. 1
Sannidhi or āsatti is the third condition of verbal knowledge. It consists in the propinquity or proximity between the different words of a sentence. If there is to be an intelligible sentence, then its constituent words must be continuous with one another in time or space. Spoken words cannot make a sentence when separated by long intervals of time Similarly, written words cannot construct one sentence when they are separated by long intervals of space Thus the words 'bring a cow' will not make a sentence when uttered on three days or written on three pages, even though they possess the first two marks of expectancy and fitness.?
Tātparyya as a condition of verbal knowledge stands for the meaning intended to be conveyed by a sentence. A word may mean different things in different cases. Whether it means this or that thing in a particular case depends on the intention of the person who uses the word. To understand the meaning of a sentence we must consider the intention of the writer or the speaker who uses it. Thus when a man is asked to bring saindhava, he is at a loss to understand whether he is told to bring salt or a borse, for the word means both This can be ascertained only if we know the intention of the speaker. Hence the understanding of a sentence depends on the understanding of its tātparyya or intended meaning In the case of ordinary sentences used by human beings, we may ascertain their tātparyya froin the context (prakaraņa) in which they are used for the understanding of the Vedic texts
1 Arthābādbo yogyată, T8, p 72 % Padânāmavilarubenoccåranamh sappidbih, bid,

Page #386

OF SENTENCES
369
we are to resort to the logical rules of interpretation systematised by the Mīmāmsā.'
With regard to the importance of tātparyya or intention as a condition of verbal knowledge there is much difference of opinion among Indian thinkers. Some hold that a definite knowledge of the tātparyya or the intended meaning 18 an essential condition of verbal knowledge. Others think that an understanding of the tātpuryya is necessary only in the case of equivocal terms and ambiguous expressions having two or more possible meanings. Others again maintain that while tātparyya is a condition of verbal knowledge, it is not to be admttted as a separate condition, but should be included within the first condition of ākānkşā or syntactic expectancy. By ākānkṣā we mean the need that one word has for another in order to convey the intended meaning of the speaker As such, tātparyya or the intended meaning is a part of the āhānksă or expectancy of words. The Vedāntists, however, contend that tātparyya in the sense of the intended meaning is not a condition of verbal cognition When the parrot imitates such human expressions as 'who comes,' 'n ho goes, ' etc., we cannot say that there is any intention behind its imitative cries. Yet we have no difficulty in understanding the meaning of these expressions. Or, when one utters the Vedic texts without understanding their meaning, he cannot be said to intend the meaning which bis bearers interpret out of them. The Vedāntists, therefore, urge that tātparyya as a condition of verbal knowledge is not constituted by the meaning intended to be conveyed by the speaker, but by the fitness of the words of a sentence to give a particular meaning (tatpratītijananayogyatvam). Thus the sentence' the jar is in the room is fit to denote the relation of the room to the
Tatpratīticchayā uccaritatvam tātparyya nanam ca väkyärthajoane hetub etc., Tattvadipikā, p 68 Vide also BP. & SM , 84 & Vide 8M., 84. Vide also Kuppuswami Sistrı, Primor of Indian Logic, p. 385.
47—(1117B)

Page #387

370
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
jar, but not to the cloth. In the case of equivocal words, like saindhava, etc , which may have more than one meaning, we are to say that the tātparyya lies in their fitness to yield a "particular meaning in the absence of some other intended meaning. The word saindhava is fit to mean salt in the absence of any intention to mean the horse [f, however, it be used to mean both salt and horse, we are to say that it has the fitness to mean both in the absence of any intended meaning other than the two. Thus while the Vedāntists admit that tātparyya is a necessary condition in the understanding of words or sentences, they reduce it to the fitness of words themselves to give a particular meaning apart from the intention, if any, of the speaker
It is to be observed here that the difference between the Nyāya and the Vedānta conception of tātparyya is ultimately due to their different notions about the meaning of words. For the Vedāntist and the Mimāmsaka, the primary meaning (sakyārtha) is a power inherent in words, while for the Naiyāyika it is inported into the words by the intention of the person who uses them Hence the Vedāntist's idea of tātparyya is vitiated by the initial assumption that the fitness of a word to mean something is an independent thing by itself, that it is a saktı or power inherent in the word, but distinct from both the word and the object denoted by it He is thus led to think that tātparyya as a condition of verbal knowledge is constituted by the inberent fitness of words to convey a particular meaning independently of the will or intention of the speaker. A word, however, is a significant sign or symbol. It acquires a meaning or significance in so far as it is 'consciously designed to stand for something.' A newly coined word is such a sign used by some one to signify something. We understand a word when we know what it is that a person
I Vide VP , Ch IV.

Page #388

OF SENTENCES
371
using it means to signify, otherwise we misunderstand it. As Dr. Stebbing' observes : “A bearer understands a word used by a speaker when he is referred to that which the speaker intended to indicate to him." But for the speaker's intention a word cannot have different meanings in different contexts. Hence we cannot ignore the aspect of intention in the meaning of a word. In fact the Vedāntists have to recognise it in the case of equivocal words which may have two meanings if it be so intended by the speaker or the writer It is also indirectly admitted by them when they say that the tātparyya of a word depends on the context (prakarana) in which it is used.
2. The meaning of a sentence
A vākya or a sentence is a combination of padas or words, which conforms to certain conditions. Just as words mean objects, so sentences mean the relations of objects. A sentence bears à certain meaning like the constituent words. Hence the question here arises · How are the meanings of the separate words constituting a sentence related to that of the sentence as a whole ? Is the meaning of a sentence merely the sum of the meanings of its words ? Or, is it something new, but determined by the meanings of the component words ? Or again, does a sentence convey a meaning of its own independently of the words constituting it ?
One theory of the relation between the meaning of a sentence and those of its constituent words is known as abhihritānvaya-vāda. According to it, the meaning of a sentence is merely the synthesis (anvaya) of the meanings of the separate words composing it When we read or hear a sentence we have first an understanding of the
1 Logic in Practice, p 66

Page #389

372
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
separate meanings of the words one after the other. Then by putting together the meanings of all the words, according to their expectancy, proximity, fitness and intention (ākānkṣā, sannidhi, yogyatā, tātparyya), we arrive at the construed meaning of the whole sentence. On this view, then, the expression of the meanings of words precedes the construction of a sentence, e. there is a construction of the meanings as expressed in the words (abhihitānvaya). As to how the different meanings, which are successively expressed by the words, are put together, we are told that it is by means of memory. We understand the meanings of the words successively; but when we come to the last word of a sentence we remember the meanings of all the preceding words. The meaning of the last word being combined with those of the preceding words by means of memory, we have an understanding of the meaning of the sentence as a whole. The theory of abhihitānvaya is advocated in the Nyaya, the Bhatta Mimaāmsā and the Vedanta system. It is generally supported by the following reasons. If the words of a sentence have no separate meanings of their own, then the classification of words into nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc, becomes meaningless. Further, in every case in which we are to understand the meaning of a sentence, we must first understand the meaning of its component words. Without a previous understanding of the words no one can understand the meaning of a sentence. Moreover, if the meaning of a sentence were quite independent of the meaning of its constituent words, then any sentence could convey any meaning. Lastly, when we understand the meaning of a new verse, we do so obviously on the basis of our knowledge of the words and their separate meanings. This cannot be explained by any understanding of the sentences, since they are new and unintelligible to us. So it is concluded that the meaning of a sentence is just the synthesis

Page #390

OF SENTENCES
373
of the separate meanings of its words. Russell subscribes to this view when he observes that 'a sentence may consist of a single word, or of a wink ; but generally it consists of several words. In that case it has a meaning which is a function of the meanings of the separate words and their order.' 2
Another theory of the relation between the meaning of a sentence and those of its constituent words is known as anvitābhidhāna-vāda. According to it, the meaning of a sentence is not merely the aggregate of the separate meanings of its constituent words The sentence has a unitary meaning of its own which cannot be resolved into the complex meaning of its words Every sentence means an action (kriyārtha). It either commands or forbids us to do something Hence the kriyā or the verb is the central unit of a sentence. All the other words of a sentence develop or particularise the action which is the central meaning of it The constituent words possess meaning only as they are related to the action meant by the sentence. Thus in the sentence bring the cow,' the word cow meaps, not the cow as such, but as the object of the verb bring. Hence in a sentence there is first a construction (anvaya) of the words with one another and then an expression (abhidhāna) of the construed meaning of the whole sentence, i.e. there is an expression of the construed meaning (anvitābhidhāna). The theory of anvitābhidhāna is advocated by the Prābhākara Mīmāmsakas and the grammarians. There is, however, some difference of opinion between them with regard to the function of the words in the construed meaning of the sentence. According to the grammarians, the constituent words have no separate meanings of their own They convey only the integral
1 Vide TB., p. 14; NM, pp. 395-96 , Vivaranaprameyasamgraha, pp. 257 f. Vide algo VP., Ch. IV, SD., p. 163.
9 Vide Outline of Philosophy, p. 266.

Page #391

374
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
meaning of the sentence in different ways and degrees Hence the words lose their individual meanings in the unitary meaning of the sentence. The Prābhākaras, on the other hand, maintain that the words convey both their separate meanings and the construed meaning of the sentence Just as in a machine the parts perform their respective functions and at the same time contribute to the function of the whole, so the words in a sentence present their individual meanings till these are construed into the unitary meaning of the sentence Hence the ineaning of a sentence is neither the aggregate meaning of the words nor is it quite independent of their separate meanings. Rather, the sentence is a new combination of the individual meanings of the words and, therefore, conveys a new meaning The Prābhākaras agree with others in holding that the combination of the separate meanings of the words is effected by memory, since the words appear in succession and their meanings are only remembered by us when we come to the end of the sentence 1
Of the different views about the meaning of a sentence, that of the Prābhākaras seems to be the best If the meaning of a sentence be, as the grammarians think, quite independent of the words, then we can have no other way of knowing it than a personal explanation from the speaker or writer of it. If, on the other hand, its meaning be merely the aggregate of the word-meanings, we do not see bow any sentence can convey a new meaning to meet a new situation. If the word-meanings are not modified in the meaning of the sentence, according to its context, no sentence can go further than the old meanings of its words. On the other hand, without something of their old meanings persisting in the words, the new meaning of a sentence cannot be understood by us.
1 Vide NM., pp 387-98, Vivaranaprameyasangraha, pp 257-60.

Page #392

OF SENTENCES
375
Hence we are to say that in the meaning of a sentence the separate meanings of the words are so modified as to fit in with the context in which the sentence is used. That the meaning of the sentence dominates the meanings of its words will appear also from the fact that in the life of the individual the judgment precedes the separate concepts related in it. The child makes assertions about objects before he understands the separate meanings of words. It is the sentence and not the word that is the starting-point of our thought and speech Hence the meaning of a word should follow the meaning of the sentence in which it is used. The meaning of the sentence is not a function of the meanings of the separate words, rather, it functions in and determines the meanings of its words. This appears from the fact that we cannot ascertain the meaning of a word unless we know the sentence in wbich it is used.
3
The import of sentences
For the Naiyāyikas, a sentence is the verbal expression of determinate knowledge (savikalpakajñāna). It is only determinate know ledge that can be conveyed by a sentence. Indeterminate knowledge (nirukulpakajñāna) cannot be expressed in words or sentences. Now determinate knowledge is the knowledge of a thing as qualified by an attribute (višesanavisesyāvagāhi). In it we know something to be related to something else as substantive to adjective. Hence a sentence as the verbal expression of determinate knowledge must contain two terms and express a relation between them. Of these two terms one is called uddeśya or the subject about which something is asserted. It 18 also
1 Cf Scbiller, Loguc for Use, p 56 A successful transfer of meading has to satisfy two conditions. (1) It has to presuppose and respect old meanings and to employ old truths, but it has also (2) bo to arrange them in their contexts as to develop new meanings out of them, in order to express new truths,'

Page #393

376
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
called višesya or the substantive wbich is regarded as the seat or locus of some quality. It may thus be called the determinandum or what is presented to be determined and characterised by thought. In relation to it, the other term is called vidheya or that which is asserted about the subject and is therefore a predicate It is known also as the višeşana or the adjective which is referred to the subject. It is that which determines the subject and may thus be called the determinans in relation to it. On this analysis of it, a sentence corresponds to a proposition in Western logic. But unlike the propositions of Formal Logic, the sentence has no need for a copula. That there must be a copula or a verb in a sentence is not admitted by the Naiyáyıkas and many other Indian thinkers. The analysis of a sentence into the subject, the predicate and the copula is repudiated by the Naiyāyıkas as utterly groundless. We can very well express a complete meaning without the copula, as when we say “parvato vahnimān." That the copula, as some form of the verb 'to be,' is not an essential part of the proposition is also recognised by modern logicians like Bradley,? Bosanquet and Johnson. The Naiyāyıkas go further than this and hold that no verb is necessary for a sentence. It may be said that a verb is implied, if not expressly mentioned, in a sentence. When we say 'a fiery hill,' or ' a red colour,' we imply the verb 'exists' or 'is'. For the Naiyāyikas, however, such verbs stand for a subjective mode of our assertion, but not for any part of the asserted fact or content" The 'bull as fiery, or the
1 Kriyárahitain na vākya mastītyādihastu prācām pravādo Diryuktıkatvādasradd. heyah, Sabdaśukte-prakāsıkā, p 28
2 Principles of Logic, Vol 1, p 21 3 Logic, Vol I, p 81. 4 Logic, Pt I, pp 10-11
6 C SH Mellope, Introductory Text-Book of Logic, p. 10 There is no separate existence in thought corresponding to the separate existence of the copula in the typical proposition, SS P.'

Page #394

377
"
'colour as red' is the content of our assertion. The verb is or exists stands for no objective content. Hence a sentence does not require a verb as an essential part of its content. So also we may have a proposition without the copula or the verb to be.' But we should observe that although the sentence as a predicative judgment (visesyavisesanavagahı) corresponds to a proposition, yet it is in itself wider than a proposition. There are sentences which do not express any relation between subject and predicate, or in which there may not be any subject or predicate, e.g. a dog runs,' 'go there,' etc. These are sentences, but not propositions expressing a relation between two terms. The Naiyayikas, however, take the sentence as equivalent to a proposition.
6
·
It will appear from the above that, according to the Naiyayikas, the import of a sentence or proposition is the predication of an attribute with regard to some thing or things. It expresses the relation between a substantive and an adjective (visesyaviseṣana). The substantive is some thing or real, while the adjective is some other fact or real found in relation to it. Hence we may say that both the subject and the predicate are real facts forming one complex whole. The proposition does not bring the one intc relation with the other, but finds them as related. The Naiyayikas, therefore, cannot agree with Bradley' and Bosanquet who hold that a proposition is the reference of an ideal content to reality, or that a proposition characterise some part of reality, with which we are in immediate contact, by referring an ideal content to it. For them, the predicate is not an ideal content but a real fact. In the proposition 'the ball is red,' the redness is as much a perceived fact as the ball, and so also their relation is no
OF SENTENCES
1 Principles of Logic, Vol I, p 10. Logic, Vol. I, p 83.
48 (1117B)

Page #395

378
ideal but an actual fact. They do not accept the subjective view that a proposition expresses a relation between two ideas, or the idealistic view that it is the reference of an ideal content to reality. As radical realists they are in favour of the objective view that the proposition expresses a real relation between two facts or reals. This naive view of the Naiyayikas has been ably supported by Mr. Gotshalk ' who opposes the idealistic view and shows that the subject of an ordinary judgment is not Reality itself but merely and simply that limited situation within Reality engaging attention,' i.e. a finite and limited reality. So also what is predicated of the subject is some real fact, a thing or quality, etc., and not a mere piece of meaning or an ideal content referred by a judgment to an existent reality.
(
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The above view of the Naiyayikas that all propositions express the subject-predicate relation between a substantive and an adjective has been opposed by the Mīmāmsakas, the Vedāntins and other logicians. According to the grammarians and the Prabhakaras, 2 every significant proposition means an action. If a proposition is to give us any new knowledge, it must not relate to matters of fact (siddhapadartha), for these may be known by means of perception and inference. On the other hand, the kriya or the verb is the central unit of a sentence or proposition. The subject and the predicate have meaning only as they are related to the verb by the nominative and objective cases. Hence the import of a proposition lies, not in the subject-predicate relation between two terms, but in the action denoted by its verb. Every proposition expresses a command and is, therefore, an imperative proposition. According to the Advaita Vedantins, " all pro
1 Vide Mind, Jan, 193
2 Vide Varanaprameyasamgraha, pp 257-56
3 Vide VP, Ch. I.

Page #396

OF SENTENCES
379
positions cannot be brought under the subject-predicate form. Identity propositions, like this is that man,' cannot be construed according to the subject-predicate relation. These propositions do not express any relation between two things, but the simple identity of a thing with itself. We cannot say here that 'that man 'is the predicate or adjective of this man. These are non-relational and therefore non-predicative propositions. Russell' also opposes the view that all propositions are reducible to the subject-predicate form. He thinks that the propositions which assign the qualities of things come under this form, e.g. " this tbing is round, and red and so on ” On the other hand, the propositions which express relations cannot be reduced to the subject-predicate form Thus in the propositions 'A 18 like B,' ' B is the brother of C,' 'C is greater than D,' we cannot say that the terminal term is predicated of the initial term. They express respectively a symmetrical, a non-symmetrical and an asymmetrical relation between different terms, of which one cannot be regarded as the quality of the other
When we consider the different views about the import of propositions, we are led to think that a distinction should be made between predicative and non-predicative propositions. In a predicative proposition a subject is related to a predicate as substantive to adjective. All propositions, however, are not predicative in this sense There are many propositions which cannot be brought under the subjectpredicate form. Thus Russell's relational propositions, ' A is like B,''C is greater than D,' do not conform to the subject-predicate form. It may be said that these propositions are predicative because in the one likeness to B'is predicated of A, and in the other 'being greater than D'
1 Our Knowledge of the External World, pp. 45-50,

Page #397

380
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
is predicated of C. This will mean that A has the attribute of being like B, and C has the attribute of being greater than D. But being like B' is not a quality of A, nor
(
the
6
6
6
"
being greater than D' of C, in the same way in which the red colour is a quality of the ball. Similarly, Vedantin's identity proposition this is that man' can hardly be reduced to the subject-predicate form For the Naiyayikas, this proposition is predicative in so far as it means that this man is characterised by a past existence.' In it a man's existence at some other time and space is predicated as a character of his present existence. Although the proposition may be interpreted in this way, yet it loses its real force when so interpreted. The proposition expresses a judgment of recognition (pratyabhijñā) In recognition we are primarily interested in the identity of a man from the past to the present. To recognise a man as that Devadatta is to know not only that he was known before, but that he is identical in the past and the present. Hence the proposition this 18 that man' does not characterise a man by his past existence and is, therefore, non-predicative l'inally, the sentences which mean action cannot be called predicative propositions by any stretch of imagination. The sentence a dog runs is not a predicative proposition, because there 18 in it no subject-predicate relation between two terms. To make it predicative it may be converted into the logical form a dog is a running animal.' But this form of the sentence does not bring out its real sense. It is an altogether different proposition, and a false proposition too, for dogs do not always run. Similarly, sentences expressing commands or imperatives are not predicative propositions in any sense or form. Thou shalt not steal,'
"
pray to God' are sentences which enjoin certain duties on us, but do not assert any relation, predicative or otherwise, between two ideas or things.
"

Page #398

OF SENTENCES
381
4. Sabda as an independent source of knowledge
According to many schools of Indian philosophy, śabda or verbal testimony is an independent pramāņa like perception and inference. As we have already seen, there is some difference of opinion among them as to the nature of sabda or verbal testimony. There are two main views with regard to it. On the one hand, the Jainas and the Naiyāyıkas take sabda as the statement of a perfectly reliable person. In this sense, śabda as pramāna means a sentence which is spoken or written by a trustworthy person, or the statement of some authority. On the other hand, sabda as a pramāna is taken by the Mināmsakas 2 and the Vedāntins' to mean a sentence or proposition whose import is not contradicted in any way. On this view, a sentence as the significant combination of words, according to the four conditions of expectancy, compatibility, proximity and fitness, is pramāna or a valid source of knowledge.
Let us now consider whether sabda can in any sense be regarded as an independent method of knowledge (pramāņa). This question resolves itself into two other questions. The first question is: Can sabda give us a true knowledge of objects? If it can, it will lave to be regarded as a pramāņa or source of knowledge. Then the second question will be this : Is the way in which sabda gives us a knowledge of objects different and distinct from perception, inference and the rest ? It does not matter if the same objects can be known by perception or inference. So long as we cannot reduce śabda on the verbal knowledge of objects to the condi
1 Aptepa pranitam vacano māptavacanam, Prameyakamalamäntanda, p 112.
2 Cf. Padartbābbidhāpadvāreņa yadvákyårtbavijitādam tacebabdana Dáms pramanam, SD., p 72.
3 Vide VP., Chap IV.
Podarbábbidbanud

Page #399

382
tions of any other kind of knowledge, we must recognise it as an independent method of knowledge.
The first question deserves an affirmative answer. Sabda or testimony gives us true knowledge about many things. The Buddhists, however, contend that sabda which consists of words cannot give us any knowledge. Words are physical objects and cannot, therefore, take the place of an organ of knowledge like the senses or the reason. Further, there is no part or aspect of reality which cannot be known by perception or inference, and for which we require a different method like sabda or testimony. This contention, however, rests on a misunderstanding Just as the same objects may be known by perception and inference, so they may be known by sabda or testimony. Or, we may say that sabda has to do with supramundane realities which cannot be known by perception o1 inference Further, words as physical sounds or coloured figures do not give us any knowledge of facts 1 Sabda as the understanding of sentences or propositions gives us more knowledge about the world than perception and inference A man's knowledge would be very meagre if he were to depend solely on his own experience and reason. The bulk of our knowledge comes from the testimony of our fellow beings, e.g books and speeches. We accept on trust by far the greater part of what we hold to be true Hence it is established that sabda does give us true knowledge of facts and is, therefore, a pramāna or source of true knowledge.
Turning to the second question, we ask if sabda or verbal testimony can be reduced to any other method or form of knowledge. While standing on the bank of an unknown river I am told by a local gentleman: "This river is fordable.' I know the depth of the river from this statement. Can this knowledge be explained by perception, or
..
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
1 Vide NV. & NVT., 2.1.43,

Page #400

OF SENTENCES
383
any other source of knowledge? It cannot be a case of perception, because I cannot directly see the river's depth nor measure it before going into its water. It cannot be explained by memory, for there is no previous experience corresponding to my present knowledge of the river's depth. I cannot now remember that the river is fordable because I have not perceived it to be such in the past. It cannot be said that my present knowledge of the river as fordable is the result of the synthesis of iny ideas of a river and of fordability acquired from the previous experiences of other fordable rivers. Even if I have such ideas or memoryimages from previous experience, they will not explain my knowledge of this river as fordable, because there is no previous experience in relation to it. 1
Next we are to consider whether sabda or verbal testimony can be reduced to inference It bas been held by many thinkers, both Indian and European, that knowledge from testimony is really a form of inference. The Buddhist logicians hold the generally accepted view that testimony is a kind of inference, because in it we infer the truth or falsity of a statement from the character of the person who makes that statement But this view makes a confusion between two different questions To determine whether testimony is a separate source of knowledge or not, we are only to see if it gives us a true knowledge of facts, and not bow its truth is known oi tested by us We can very well know the meaning of a sentence even before we enquire into its source, or when its source cannot be known. In fact, testimony is the source of the greater part of our knowledge of the world. Thus the Buddhist contention falls to the ground. The Vaiścșikas try to reduce testimony
1 So'yain niyantntarthatvāppu pratyaksam na cgpumā Da căsau smrtih samānākāra-gainskāräprabbavatvāt, Sabdaśaktı prakästhā, pp 3-4
2 Vide NV., 1 1 7. Cf Vākyagavanantaramevn hyāptánāptajñānānapekşaneva padārtbairvākyārtho 'vaganyato, SD, p. 73.

Page #401

384
to inference on more plausible grounds. According to them, knowledge from testimony is governed by the fundamental law of inferential reasoning. Just as in an inference we know an unperceived fact from the perception of a sign that is universally related to it ((ryāptiśāli-linga)), so in testimony we have the knowledge of some unperceived facts from the perception of the words by which they are denoted. I hear the sentence 'there are five trees on the river-bank.' With this I have an auditory perception of a number of words. I know that each of these words has a fixed and universal relation with the object meant by it Hence to know these words is, for me, to know the objects denoted by them, just as to know smoke is, for a man who knows the universal relation between smoke and fire, to know the existence of fire in relation to it. In testimony our knowledge about facts is brought about by the knowledge of words as signs or middle terms (lingā) and that of their invariable relation (iyāptî) with those facts. Hence knowledge from testimony is really inferential in character. But this attempt to reduce testimony to a kind of inference reminds us of the Procrustean method. It violently turns and twists the nature of testimony to make it conformable to the standard of inference, and yet it cannot succeed. Inference depends on the knowledge of vyapti which is a natural relation of coexistence between two things, eg. smoke and fire. No knowledge of the meanings of words is necessary to infer the existence of fire from smoke. From the mere perception of smoke in the hill we know that there must be fire in it. If there were such a natural relation of coexistence between words and their meanings, then an illiterate man should have had as good knowledge from words as any man of letters. Further, the relation between
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
1
2
1 Sabdopamānayornaiva pithakpramanyamisyate, anumanagatarthatvaditi vaikeşıkam matam, BP, 140-41.
2 Sabdo 'numanam vyaptıbalenarthapratipadakatvaddhumavat, NK, p 218.

Page #402

385
ence.
the middle and the major term of an inference is such that if the middle is present in a certain locus, the major also must be present in it. If there were such a relation between words and the objects denoted by them, we should expect to find the objects in the body of the person or the book in which the words occur In truth, the relation between words and their objects is quite different from that which holds between the middle and the major term of an inferWords mean certain objects, but do not coexist with them. So also, the conditions of verbal knowledge or testimony are specifically different from those of an inference. It is true that both depend on a mental construction of certain given data But in inference the construction is limited to only three terins and proceeds according to their relations of inclusion and exclusion. In verbal knowledge there is a construction of the meanings of any number of words constituting a sentence, according to their syntactical expectancy, propinquity, mutual fitness and intention 1 Even if our understanding of the meaning of a word may be said to be conditioned, like inference, by a fixed association between the two, we cannot speak of any fixed relation between a sentence and its meaning. A sentence conveys different meanings according to its different constructions. Its meaning depends on such specific conditions as the expectancy, fitness, proximity and intended meaning of words, which are not to be found in inference or any other kind of knowledge. Finally, the evidence of introspection (anuvyavasaya) confirms the result of the logical analysis that testimony is distinct from inference. It clearly shows that we cannot detect any inferential process in the knowledge from testimony. When from the sentence' the cow exists' I know that a certain cow does exist, I feel that I do not infer the existence of a cow, but understand it from a
OF SENTENCES
1 Yogyatarthagata 'kanksā sabdanisṭhā 'nubbāvikā, pratyekam vā militvā vā naite lingamasiddhitaḥ, Sabdaśakti-prakāśikā, kār 4
49-(1117B)

Page #403

386
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
sentence.' Hence we conclude that testimony is a distinct method of knowledge which cannot be reduced to any other method.
Some Western thinkers now recognise testimony as a separate source of knowlege. Thus Russell ? frankly admits that "testimony is essential to science, although it is open to cnticism by the sceptic. So also Montague" thinks that ' testimony that is open to free and honest study remains as legitimate a source of knowledge as any other.' He, however, holds that testimony is not a primary but a secondary source of knowledge For him the weakness of testimony consists first in the fact that authorities conflict But on his own admission this difficulty is not peculiar to testimony ; it is present in each of the other methods. There are conflicting perceptions and inferences, like conflicting testimonies. Hence this cannot be a ground of distinction between one method as primary and another as secondary The second and more serious source of weakness in testimony is, for him, its dependence on some other method for establishing its validity When questioned as to why we should accept a given authority, the answer must be that the authority knows the truth direct through some other method like experience or intuition. This shows that the truth of testimony ultimately depends on the direct experience, reason or intuition, of some person In testimony the individual's relation to truth is not direct but indirect, for it depends on the direct knowledge of a second individual, while in sense and reason the individual is in direct relation with the truth of things Hence testimony
1 Vastatoasttasera gämanipipomityăderapuvyavasāyasya tatrăsattvät, pratyuta gaurastiti vākyädastit vena gauh śruto na tvapumita tyevānubhavacca, Sabdaśaktı. prakāśıkā, p 7
2 Outline of Philosophy, p 6
3 The Ways of Knowing, Chap I It may be noted here that L 8 Stebbing also inclines to the viow that wbile testimony 18 & source of human knowledge, it is not an independent source, but can be reduced to inference (vrde Logic in Practice, p 102)

Page #404

OF SENTENCES
387
cannot be a primary and an ultimate source of knowledge like the other methods. According to the Naiyayikas also, the validity of the knowledge derived from testimony depends on the reliability of the person who is its source. So also the truth of testimony is to be proved or tested by successful activity or verification in direct experience. Still the Naiyayikas recognise testimony as an independent source of knowledge like perception and inference
The Mīmāmsakas and the Vedantins go further than the Naiyayikas and hold that the truth of the knowledge from testimony is both constituted and known by itself. By testimony they mean a significant combination of ideas expressed by words, according to their expectancy, compatibility, propinquity and fitness It is a sentence in which the ideas expressed by the words are consistent with one another and also with the facts denoted by them. The meaning conveyed by a sentence is not only consistent in itself but also with the facts of experience. As such, it naturally leads to a knowledge of the truth. The truth of the knowledge derived from testimony is thus constituted by its own intrinsic conditions. And truth 18, wherever it is, known by itself. It is a self-evident character of knowledge and requires no other test than itself in order to be known as true. For example, a true perception is by itself known as true. Similarly, the knowledge derived from a proposition or sentence is true and is known as true, if there be no ground to contradict or doubt it. The truth of testimony is both constituted and established by itself.
Although we do not go so far as to say with the Mīmāmsakas and the Vedantins that testimony has selfevident validity, yet we find no reason to deny that it is an independent or ultimate source of knowledge. Whether a certain source of knowledge is independent or not depends on two things: (i) whether it gives us a true knowledge of facts, and (i) whether its conditions are distinct from those

Page #405

388
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
of any other source. It does not matter if the truth of the knowledge is constituted or ascertained by some other source. Thus the validity of an inference depends on the validity of our perceptions of the middle term and its relation to the major term. So also the truth of its conclusion is tested by verification in direct experience. Still no one denies that inference is a primary and an ultimate source of knowledge. If it be so, why should we not recognise testimony also as an ultimate source of knowledge? We have already seen that it gives us a true knowledge of facts in a way distinct from any other way of knowing them. If testimony depends on perception to prove its validity, perception also depends on inference to prove its own validity when that is doubted or questioned by any one. The dependence of one method on another for its proof or verification is a difficulty, not peculiar to testimony, but common to all the methods of knowledge. Further, there are certain crucial instances in which we cannot go beyond testimony and prove its truth by some other method. If to the question as to why a given authority should be accepted, the almost inevitable answer is, as Montague thinks, that the authority possessed a direct knowledge of the truth, what should be our answer to the next question as to how we know that he had a direct knowledge of the truth. Here we have to depend on the statement of the authority himself. We do not require any other proof of his direct knowledge of the truth. Similarly, we learn that a name denotes a class of things from the testimony of our elders and they from their elders and so on indefinitely without there being any direct knowledge of the word's meaning on the part of any one. Even in the case of the man who first used the name in relation to certain things or one who first found it to be so used, we cannot speak of a direct knowledge of its meaning, for the name could not be perceived like a label attached to those things. Thus

Page #406

OF SENTENCES
we see that, like perception and inference, testimony does not always require to be proved by direct knowledge, although it may be so proved when necessary We should therefore recognise it as an independent and ultimate source of knowledge like perception and inference.
389

Page #407

CHAPTER XX
OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
1. Different news about the ultimate sources of knowledge
There is much difference of opinion ainong Indian thinkers as to what the ultimate sources of human knowledge are for the Cārvākas, who are radical empiricists, perception is the only valid source of our knowledge and all true knowledge comes from perception. The Buddhists hold that perception and inference are the two ultimate sources of true knowledge, which include other sources like upamūna and sabda According to the Sānkhya and the Yoga system, śabda oi vei bal testimony also should be recognised as an independent source of kuowledge like perception and inference. The Sāmkhya includes upamānu, arthāpatti and sambhuva under inference, and abhūra under perception.' The Naiyāyıkas aie in favour of the view that there are four independent sources of knowledge, namely, perception, inference, testimony and upamāna or comparison. According to them, the other sources of knowledge may be included within these four and so need not be taken as ultimate or independent sources of knowledge According to the Vaiseșikas, there are four kinds of vidyā or true knowledge, namely, perception, inference, memory and intuitive experience (ārsujñāna). They include sabda, upamūnu, arthāpattı, abhāva, saibhara and urtihyu within inference. But there is some difference of opinion as to whether all the four kinds of vidyā or knowledge are
1 TKD, kár 5, Yoga-sutra, 1.7 2 NK., pp 213-31.

Page #408

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
391
1
independent sources of knowledge or not. It will follow from the definition of vidya as definite knowledge which is free from doubt and contradiction that all kinds of vidya are pramana or independent sources of knowledge. Śrīdhara in his Nyayakandali at first tells us that perception, inference and smrti or memory are treated first because they are laukila pramāna or ordinary sources of knowledge, and then arsa because it is an extraordinary source of knowledge. But in the course of the discussion on smrti he observes that it is not a pramānu because it depends on previous experience to give us knowledge of past objects The Nyayalilavati. a compendium of the Vaisesika philosophy, establishes the view that smrti or memory is an independent source of knowledge like perception, inference and intuitive knowledge. In the later works of the Nyaya-Vaiseṣika philosophy, however, it is generally maintained that the Vaisesikas accept only perception and inference as two independent sources of knowledge According to the Jainas, perception, both ordinary and extraordinary, inference, testimony, pratyabhijñā or recognition and smṛtı or memory are all independent sources of knowledge, although they may be classified under the two heads of pratyahsa and parokṣa, immediate and mediate knowledge. The Prabhakaras hold that arthapatti or postulation should be accepted as a separate source of knowledge like perception, inference, testimony and comparison. The Bhaṭṭas and the Vedantins add anupalabdhi or non-perception to these five and maintain that there are six distinct sources of knowledge. The Paurānikas go further than this in holding that sambhava or probability and aitihya or tradition also are to be recognised as separate sources of knowledge like
3
1
1 Vide pp 186, 257.
2 Smrtırapi manintarameva, etc, NL, p 67 (Bombay Edn.).
3 Vide TR., p 56, TK, p 7
Vide TTS, I, 10-13.

Page #409

392
the six pramānas admitted by the Bhaṭṭas and the Vedāntins.
1
Now the question is this: How many independent sources of knowledge are we to accept? The Naiyayikas accept only four sources of knowledge as distinct and independent These are perception, inference, comparison and testimony as explained and discussed before What then are they to say with regard to such alleged sources of knowledge as antihya, sambhara, abhāva or anupalabdhi, arthāpatti, smrti, pratyabhijñā and ursajñāna? According to them, ārsajñāna or intuitive knowledge is a kind of extraordinary (alaukika) perception, while pratyabhijñā is only a kind of qualified perception. These two come under perception as an ultimate source of knowledge and are not themselves separate sources of knowledge. As regards artıhya or tradition, the Naiyayikas hold that it is a kind of testimony, of which the source is not definitely known. " Tradition means the continuous communication of a body of ideas and beliefs from one generation to another It has its origin in no living individual, but is enjoyed by all individuals as the common property of the race. Now the body of ideas and beliefs constituting a particular tradition is accepted as true on the authority of some person or persons, whoever they may be. We believe in tradition because we are pretty confident that it must have originally emanated from some reliable persons As such, tradition is a form of vague testimony, in which we know certain things on the authority of some unknown persons Similarly, sambhava may be included within inference. It may be taken to mean either probable knowledge or the knowledge of numerical inclusion. In the first sense it is illustrated when we expect rain from the appearance of clouds in the
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
2
1 Vide TR., p 56
2 Vide Chaps IX & X ante
3 Anırdıştapravaktṛkam pravāda pāramparyam aitihyam, NB, 2 2 1

Page #410

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
393 sky. Here we think that there will probably be rainfall because we know that clouds are generally followed by rain. But such probable knowledge is not pramā or valid knowledge and so requires no pramāņa or source of knowledge to explain it. In the second sense, however, sambhava? means the knowledge of the part from that of the whole within which it is included. Thus we know that there is a hundred within a thousand, a seer within a maund. Such knowledge is really inferential in character, since it depends on the knowledge of vyāptı or invariable concomitance between the part and the whole. Hence sambhava need not be taken as a separate source of knowledge other than anumāna or inference. The question as to whether arthāpattı, abhāva or anupalabdhi, and smộti should be recognised as separate sources of knowledge or not will be separately considered in the following sections.
2. Arthāpattı or postulation as a source of knowledge
Arthāpattı as a source of knowledge consists in the supposition of some unperceived fact in order to explain a given fact. When a given or perceived fact cannot be explained without some other fact we have to presuppose or postulate the existence of this other fact even though we do not perceive it. A phenomenon is presented to our experience and we find that there is a seeming contradiction involved in it. We try to get over this contradiction by supposing some other fact which explains away the contradiction. The given fact which is to be explained is called the upapādya, and that which explains it is called the upapādaka. Hence here we proceed from the knowledge of something to be explained to the knowledge of that
1 Pracorasābacaryasam pedanåt buddhirabadhită samhbhavah, eto., NL, p. 57.
3 Sambhavo nama avinäbbăvino 'rthasya sattăgrahaņādanyasya sattágrahanam .. tadapyanumānameva, NB., 2 2 1.2
50(1117B)

Page #411

394
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
which explains it, i.e. from the consequence to the ground.' Thus when a man who is growing fat says that he fasts, we find an apparent contradiction between his increasing fatness and his fasting. We get out of this contradiction by the supposition that the man eats at night, because a man who fasts at day cannot grow fat unless he takes food at might. Or, a man, who is living, is not found in his house. To explain the absence of the man from his house we suppose that he is somewhere outside his house, because a living man cannot be absent from his house unless he lives outside it.
According to the Advaita Vedānta and the Bhātta Mimāınsā, arthāpatti is a separate source of knowledge, because it gives us a knowledge of facts which cannot be otherwise explained. It cannot be explained by perception, since the fact known through arthāpattı is not perceived by us. That the fat inan eats at night is not a matter of perception for us. Nor can we explain this knowledge by inference According to the Advaitins, arthūpatti is not an inference It cannot be reduced to anvayı inference, because there is no anvaya or agreement in presence between fatness and eating at night as between smoke and fire We cannot say that wherever there is fatness there is eating at night, just as we can say that wherever there is smoke there is fire. Nor can arthāpatti be reduced to vyatıreki inference, because there is no such thing as vyatireki inference Further, the direct report of our consciousness is against the supposition that arthāpatta is an interence. In anuvyavasāya or introspection of the knowledge by arthāpattı we do not feel to have 'inferred' anything, but simply to have supposed or presumed something in order to explain something else?
1 Upapådyajøå goda upa pådakajbánato arthấpattıls, etc , VP, Ch V. Arthåputti. rapi drøtah bruto va 'rtho'nyatbā nopapadyata ityarthakalpana, SD, p 76
VP , Ch V

Page #412

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
395
The Naiyāyıkas, Sāṁkhyas and others object to the above view of arthāpattı as a separate source of knowledge. According to the Naiyāyikas, arthāpatti may be reduced to an inference of the vyatireki type. It is not indeed an anvayı inference in which the major premise expresses a positive relation of agreement in presence between the middle and the major terin, e.g. whenever there is fatness, there is eating at night.' On the other hand, it is a vyatırekı inference in which the major premise expresses a universal relation between the absence of the major and the absence of the middle. Thus the above example of arthāpatti may be reduced to the following syllogism :
A man who does not eat at night while fasting by day
is not fat; This man who fasts at day is fat ; This man is not a man who does not eat at night, i.e.
he eats at night.
As anthāpatti may thus be reduced to yatueki inference, the Nayāyikas refuse to acknowledge it as a separate source of knowledge. So also the Sāmkhya philosophers explain arthāpatti as a form of inference Taking the second example of arthāpattı given above, Vacaspati points out that it can be reduced to the following inference
If a living individual is absent somewhere, he is present
elsewhere; Devadatta who is living is absent from home ; • He is somewhere outside his bome.
Here a man's existence outside bis home is inferred from
his absence from home as the linga or the middle term. There is a relation of vyāptı or universal concomitance between a man's presence somewhere and his absence
1 Yastu na rátruu bhuri kte nâsau divābhuñjāpat ve sati pino, etc , TB, p. 16.

Page #413

396
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
elsewhere. Every man finds this to be true in his own case. Hence when we know the one from the other we simply infer it from its linga or universal concomitant, just as we infer fire from smoke. 1
futility of the
The Bhaṭṭa Mimamsakas expose the attempt to reduce arthapatti to inference They point out certain fundamental differences between inference and arthapattı, which make it impossible for us to reduce either of them to the other. It may seem at first view that inference and arthapattı involve the same process of reasoning. In arthapatti we pass from the knowledge of an observed phenomenon to that of an unobserved phenomenon without which it cannot be explained. In inference also we pass from the observed smoke to the unobserved fire as that which alone explains the smoke But a closer view of the matter reveals certain important and unmistakable differences between the two In inference we proceed from the gamaka or the evidentiary fact to the gamya or the evidenced fact, while in arthapatti we pass from the gamya or the fact to be evidenced and explained to the gamaka or that which evidences and explains it. Again, in arthāpattı we are confronted with an apparent conflict between two facts, e.g. a man's fatness and fasting by day, or, a man being alive and yet absent from home. In order to resolve this conflict we have to presuppose or postulate another fact, namely, that the man eats at night, or that the man has gone out. So long as we do not make this supposition we are in doubt as to whether the man really fasts, or whether he really exists or not. Such doubtful facts cannot be the linga or the mindle term of any valid inference. In arthāpatte we get over this state of doubt and conflict by Supposing something which explains them away Hence
1 Evamarthapattırapi na pramaņāntaram yada khalva vyapakah sannekatra nas tadanysträsti, etc, Tattvakaumudi, p. 46

Page #414

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
397
•
while in inference we pass from an undoubted fact (niscita yamaka) to its invariable concomitant, in arthapatti we proceed from a doubtful fact (samdigdha gamaka) to something which explains it and saves us from the doubt. 1 Finally, if arthapatti is to be reduced to inference, we must show what the linga or the middle term of that inference is. When we argue that Devadatta exists outside his house because he is living and yet absent from home, we cannot take mere 'absence from home' as the middle term, for the man may be dead and cease to exist at all. Nor can we say that living' is the middle term, because a living man may exist inside his house. Nor again can it be said that Devadatta's living together with his absence in the house' is the middle term from which we infer his existence outside the house. In an inference we first know the linga or the middle term and then, through it, the lingi or the major term The two are not known together, but one after the other In the case of Devadatta, however, we cannot connect his living with his absence from the house except through the idea of his existence outside the house. Hence to know the alleged middle term, namely, 'his living together with his absence from the house is just to know his existence outside the house This being known along with the alleged middle term, there remains nothing more to be inferred from it So arthāputti is not the inference of the major term from the middle term, but the presupposition of one fact in order to explain another, in which is involved a seeming contradiction.
2
،
"
1 Syadevam, yadyanupapannam gamakam syat, iha tu yannopapadyate tadev gamyam. yatha canumane niscitam gamakam, evamarthapattau samdigdhal gamakamiti, etc., SD, pp 76-77
2 Na tā vadgṛhabhavamitra lingam mite'pi sambhavāt, Da Jivanamatran gho'pi sadbhāvāt, ato jīvanasamsṛṣto gṛhābhāvo lingamıtı vaktavyam, prathamam c lingamavagamya pascallingyanumanena bhavitavyam...atra ca na bahirbhavi vagamamantarena grhābhāvo ivanain ca sainsṛṣṭam pratyetum sakyate virodha etc., 8D., p. 78.

Page #415

398
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
The Bhāțţa Mimānisakas next discuss the question of reducing inference to arthāpatti. It may be said that if we accept arthāpatti as a separate source of knowledge, there is no more necessity of recognising inference as a different source of knowledge. Inference may be shown to be the same as arthāpattı, for we can analyse an inference in the following way. When I see smoke in the hill, I think that if there were no fire, this smoke would be unaccounted for. Therefore, either there is no smoke in the hill or the universal proposition, 'wherever there is smoke, there is fire,' is false. But neither of the alternatives can be accepted. The universal proposition bas been established with rigorous certainty and the smoke is an object of perception. Hence the apparent contradiction is resolved by the supposition that there is fire. Thus inference becomes identical with arthāpattı. To this the Bhāttas reply that inference may be said to be arthāpattı only if we admit that the universal proposition was not previously known by mference. In certam instances we know that smoke is related to fire. From this we infer that all smoke is related to fire. It cannot be said that without the universal proposition our know ledge of the relation between smoke and fire in certain instances involves a contradiction which 18 resolved by the postulation of it Hence the knowledge of the universal proposition requires to be explained by inference as a separate source of knowledge.
Now we are to observe that arthāpattı as explained above is an independent pramūna like perception, inference and the rest. It cannot be reduced to inserence as the Naiyāyikas and the Sāmkhyas endeavour to do. The reason for this, however, is not, as the Advaitins suppose, that there is no such thing as vyatireki inference, to which
1 Syadevain yadı sarvadhūmavatảmagpiunattvamanumăpădu nyeusvagatan gyál, etc , SD, p 79

Page #416

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
399
arthāpatti may possibly be reduced. The Advaita Vedāntins lose their case against those who prove that vyatıreki is a genuine type of inference, or reduce arthāpatti to some other kind of inference like the hypothetical-categorical or the disjunctive-categorical syllogism. The real reason is, as the Bhāttas point out, that arthāpatti cannot be reduced to any kind of inference. The fundamental condition of all inference is the relation of vyāptı or invariable concomitance between the major and the middle term. In every inference the conclusion follows from a universal proposition which is the result of a previous induction. The knowledge of the universal proposition is derived from the uncontradicted experience of agreement in presence or in absence between the iniddle and the major term. In any inference we apply a universal proposition, which is already known, to a particular case. To reduce arthāpattı to inference we must, therefore, show that here our knowledge of the unobserved fact follows from a universal proposition which is already known by induction. The Naiyāyikas and others would say that the knowledge given by arthāpattı does follou from certain universal propositions. That Devadatta eats at night follows from the universal proposition, “A man who does not cat at night wbile fasting by day is not fat." Similarly, the fact that he is out follows from the proposition, “A living man is either at home or out of 1t” But these propositions are not cases of real vyāptı or induction. They are not generalisations from the particular facts of experience The universal proposition, “Wherever there is smoke there is fire,” is derived from the particular instances of their coexistence. So also, the proposition, " Wherever there is no fire there is no smoke." is derived from the particular instances of their agreement in absence. But we have no previous experiences of the agreement in absence between eating at night' and fatness. We have previous experiences of the concomitance

Page #417

400
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
between eating and fatness or between their absence. Hence to explam the apparent contradiction between fatness and absence of eating by day we have to suppose that there is eating at night Our knowledge of the fact that Devadatta eats at night does not follow from any universal proposition which is already known, because there is here no universal proposition at all. It is the result of an attempt to correlate his fatness with the absence of eating by day—a process of reasoning which is different from that involved in inference Similarly, the proposition, ‘A living man is either at home or out of it,' is not a generalisation from particular instances of the concomitance between a man's absence from home and presence outside. We cannot say tbat the one coexists with the other, just as smoke coexists with fire. Hence we cannot deduce our knowledge of the fact that Devadatta is out from any such universal proposition. Rather, it follows in the wake of any atteinpt to reconcile the facts that Devadatta lives and yet he does not live in the house. In fact, the socalled universal proposition is itself a statement of the conclusion in general terms and cannot really explain it. Hence arthāpatti is not a form of inference, but a separate source of knowledge.
3
Abhāra and anupalabdhı as sources of linowledge
Abhāva may be taken to mean either contrast or noncognition. In the first sense it means a relation of contrast or antithesis between two tbings as between existence and non-existence.' When there is such a relation of contrast or contradiction between two things, then from the existence of the one we may know the non-existence of the other and vice versa. Thus froin the non-existence of rain
1 Abbá vo virodbi, abhūtati bhūtasys, etc, NB., 22.1.

Page #418

401
we know the existence of some contact of the clouds with high winds which prevent rainfall. It is on account of the obstruction offered by high winds that rain drops do not fall to the ground, as they otherwise would by the force of gravity. The Naiyayikas hold that this argument from nonexistence to existence is really a form of inference, because it is based on a uniform relation of concomitance between two opposite or contradictory things. Two contradictory objects are so related to one another that the existence of the one implies the non-existence of the other and vice versa. Hence abhäva or non-existence as a source of knowledge is to be included within inference. The Vaiseṣikas also reduce abhāva to inference According to them, the non-existence of the effect indicates the non-existence of the cause, just as its existence indicates the existence of the cause. Hence abhāva or non-existence gives us the knowledge of that which is uniformly related to it, like the linga or the middle term of an inference. The argument based on abhāva or non-existence is thus really a kind of anumāna or inference. 2
1
OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
Later Naiyayikas take abhāva to mean the absence of cognition and not the relation of contrast or opposition between two things." In this sense abhāva coincides with anupalabdhi or non-cognition. According to the Bhaṭṭa Mimāmsā and the Advaita Vedanta, anupalabdhi is an independent pramāņa or source of knowledge. It is the unique cause of such presentative knowledge of nonexistence as is not due to inference or any other kind of knowledge. Thus the non-existence of a jar on the table which I see before me is known from the absence of its cogni
4
1 Ibid
2 NK, p. 225; VS, 9.2.1.
3 TB., p 15, N.L, p. 57
♦ Jñānakaraṇā;anyābhāvānubhavāsādhāraṇakāraņamanupalabdhirupaṁ pramāņam, VP., Ch. VI.
51-(1117B)

Page #419

402
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
1
tion or its non-perception (anupalabdhi). I judge that the jar does not exist on the table because it is not perceived, while I know that it would have been perceived if it existed there. This knowledge of non-existence cannot be explained by inference, since it is not brought about by the knowledge of vyapti or a universal relation between two terms. It cannot be said that the non-existence of the jar is inferred from its non-perception which is known to be universally related to non-existence. The knowledge of a universal relation between non-perception and non-existence requires a previous knowledge of non-existence as such, which cannot be given by any inference. Nor can we explain the knowledge of the jar's non-existence by comparison (upamāna) or testimony, since it is not due to any knowledge of similarity or of words and sentences Hence to explain the direct knowledge of the jar's non-existence we have to recognise anupalabdhi or non-perception as a separate and independent source of knowledge. All non-perception, however, does not prove the non-existence of what is not perceived We cannot perceive such supersensible entities as dharma and adharma, ether and atom Yet we do not judge them to be non-existent Non-perception gives us the knowledge of the non-existence of such objects as should have been perceived if they existed. If a thing should be perceived under certain circumstances, then its nonperception under those circumstances is a proof of its non-existence. It IS this appropriate non-perception (yogyānupalabdhı) that is the source of our knowledge of non-existence.
2
The Naiyayikas, Samkhyas" and others controvert the above view of anupalabdhi as an independent source of
1 Napyanumeyab, ajñatena tena kasyacıllingasya sambandhagrahaņāsambhavat, SD, p 87.
VP & SD, sbid
3 Evamabbavo 'pi pratyakṣameva, TKD., p 50.

Page #420

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE 403 the knowledge of non-existence. According to them, such knowledge does not require anupalabdh as a separate source of knowledge, but is a special case of perception. Just as we perceive the existence of objects, so also we can perceive their non-existence under certain conditions. When there is a jar on the table before me I perceive its existence through a direct contact between my senses and the object, jar Hence the existence of the jar is directly perceived by me But when there is no jar on the same table, I perceive its absence or non-existence as a characteristic of the table The table is characterised by the absence of the jar. Hence tbe absence of the jar comes in contact with my senses through being adjectival (višeşana) to the table wbich is in direct contact with the senses So when I directly perceive the table, I indirectly perceive the absence of the jar on it. This perception of the absence or non-existence of a thing, however, requires two negative conditions, namely, the non-perception (anupalambha) of that thing and the hypothetical reasoning (tarka) that if it existed it would have been perceived like the table. Before we come to know the absence of the jar on the table we must be sure of the fact that we do not perceive it there l'urther, we must be sure that all the conditions that are necessary for its perception are present at the time when it is not perceived The absence of the jar is perceived by me when I do not perceive it on the table but know that it would have been perceived if it existed there. The non-existence of the jar is thus known by means of perception when it is combined with the non-perception of the jar and the hypotbetical reasoning about its existence. That this knowledge of non-existence is a form of perception is directly felt by us. We are immediately aware of the fact that the non-existence of
1 Tarkanubakaripānupalambhasanåthena pratyakşeņaivabhävagrahapăt, TB.. p 13,

Page #421

404
a jar on the table is directly known or perceived by us. Anupalabdhi or non-perception of the jar is a negative condition of the perception, and not the source of our knowledge of its non-existence. If non-perception be taken as a source of knowledge, then it must be either cognised by some other non-perception or not cognised at all On the first alternative we are landed in the fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum. On the second, non-perception becomes identical with perception, since, like perception, it is knowledge which is not produced by any other knowledge. Hence the Naiyayikas conclude that non-perception is not a separate source of knowledge, but a special case of perception.'
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
We have already seen how the knowledge of nonexistence, which is not due to inference or any other kind of reasoning, cannot be explained by perception. A negative fact like the non-existence of a jar is not a sensible fact like the existence of the table. We do not understand how our senses can come in contact with the absence of a thing. A man says at noon that nobody came to his house in the morning. Here we cannot suppose any contact between sense and nobody. It cannot be said that we perceive the non-existence of a thing as a characteristic or quality of the locus in which it is non-existent. To know a certain locus as characterised by the absence of an object is to know beforehand what absence or nonexistence 18. Hence our primary knowledge of non-existence cannot be a perception of it as the quality of any locus, like the red colour of a rose Nor can it be said that we are immediately aware of the fact that the nonexistence of a thing is perceived What we immediately know is that we do not perceue a thing in a certain place.
1 Abhivapratyakṇasyanubhavikatvada nupalambho'pi na pramagantaram etc,
SM,
p. 502

Page #422

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
405
This absence of perception gives us the knowledge of its non-existence. The Naiyāyikas practically admit this when they take non-perception as the antecedent condition of the perception of non-existence. If to perceive the non existence of a thing we are to make sure that we do not perceive it under favourable circumstances, then we are to say that it is the absence of perception that assures us of the thing's non-existence Hence we conclude that anupalabdhi or non-perception should be recognised as a separate source of knowledge to explain our primary cognition of the non-existence of objects.
4. Smrti or memory as a distinct source of knowledge
We have already given an account of the views of the different schools of Indian philosophy with regard to smộti or memory. It may be recalled here that with the exception of the Jaina, the Vaiseșika and the Advaita Vedānta system, all the schools are definitely opposed to smộti being regarded as a form of valid knowledge. All these schools agree in holding that smrti is knowledge wbich is solely due to the impressions of past experiences in it there is a revival of the impressions of some old experience and consequently a repetition of the experience itself in the form of images. Smộti as a revival of past experiences has been excluded from the forms of valid knowledge on two main grounds. First, it has been urged by the Mimāṁsakas that smộtı does not give us any new knowledge but is only the revival of soine old knowledge. In it we do not know anything new, but only remember that we knew something belore. Then tbe Naiyāyikas, who do not accept this as a conclusive reason, argue that smiti is not pramā or valid knowledge because it is not anubhava or presentative knowledge. In it we have the knowledge of what was once given in our

Page #423

406
NYAYA "HEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
experience, but has now ceased to be given and presented to us. It is not the presentation of any objective fact but the representation of what was once presented. The object as remembered is different from the presented object, since the object as presented before has now ceased to exist. Hence we cannot speak of a true correspondence between memory and its object (yāthārthya).
The Jainas who accept smrti or memory as a source of valid knowledge refute the above grounds urged against it. According to them, smiti is not merely a revival of the impressions of past experience. While the origin of memory is conditioned by the revival of impressions of past experiences, its essence lies in the knowledge of something as' that,'2 e. as past (ta lityūkūra)' It is the knowledge of a previously experienced object as past. To put it in the words of Hobhouse, 'memorv is an assertion of the past as past.' That memory refers to a previously experienced object, or that it is an assertion of the past, is known from memory itself Such knowledge of the past by means of memory is valid, since, like perception, it leads to successful activity. We cannot deny the validity of the knowledge by memory simply on the ground that it refers to a previously known object If memory becomes invalid because its obje:t is previously known, then the perception of the fire which is already known by inference would become invalid. Lastly, if memory be invalid, then all inferences which are based on the remembrance of vyāptı between the major and the middle term would become invalıd ? How can any knowledge be valid when it has its basis in memory which is invalıd? The validity of memory is presupposed in the validity of inference as a source of knowledge.
i Tadityäkäräpubbūtárthavasya bi pratitih m rityucyate, Promejukumula. märtanda, p 96
2 Na căsá vapramāņam samvadakatvāt ... ko hi smrtipūrvakamanumanainabhyu pagamya punastári nurákuryat, etc., ibid., pp. 96-97

Page #424

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
407
Some Vaiseşıka writers also are in favour of accepting smrti as a source of our knowledge of the past. Laugākşi Bhāskara recognises both memory and presentative cognition (smrtyanubhava) as forms of valid knowledge and their instrumental or special causes as sources of knowledge. According to him, smộti or memory arises out of the impressions of past experience and is the knowledge of an individual object as 'that' or as something previously experienced, e.g. 'that bathing ghat,'' tbat city of Benares.'! Vallabhācārya proves on strong grounds that smrti or memory also is an independent source of knowledge. Smrti is a separate pramāna because it gives us a true knowledge of certain facts (arthaniscayahetutvāt). The fact that it depends on previous experience is no reason for denying its independence, for that is something common to all the pramānas or sources of knowledge. It cannot be said that it is merely the repetition of some previous experience. It is something more than the faint repetition of a past experience If it were not so, we could not at all know that the experience is past. In smộti or memory we know an object as tbat which is past. The awareness of its' pastness' is no part of our previous experience of it. It is memory that gives a knowledge of this new element, namely, the 'thatness' or the pastness' of an object, and is, therefore, an independent source of knowledge. Hence the Mimāmsaka contention that memory does not give us any new knowledge falls to the ground Then the Naiyāyıkas' objection that smrti or memory does not correspond to its object is also untenable It is true that in memory an object is thought of as being present at some time in the past (pūrvarartaminakālāı acchinna) and that its once present condition has now been extinct (nivrttapūriāvasthā). But
1 Sarhskāramátrajanyam jñādam smrtih, gathā sa manikarniká . 80.ftyanu. bhavagadharana pramā karanan pramānam, Tarkakaumudi, p 6.

Page #425

408
NYAYA THICORY OF KNOWLEDGE
this is no good ground for denying the correspondence between memory and its object. When we remember an object, we are aware of representing it as no longer present or with its old conditions as now extinct. The object is therefore faithfully represented in memory. It follows from this that memory is the true knowledge of an object.' We may add also that memory is a presentative knowledge (anubhava), since it is based on an objective order of things in the world. As we have already seen, anubhava or presentative knowledge is the cognition of what is objective (tattva) as distinguished from the false or the subjective (iropita). In presentative knowledge the object need not be directly given as in perception, for that will exclude inference, comparison and testimony from the field of anubhavu or presentative knowledge. All these, however, are recognised by the Naiyāyikas as forms of presentative knowledge. What is common to all these recognised forms of presentative knowledge is not that they give us an immediate knowledge of some object, but that they refer, either directly or indirectly, to an objective fact or an objective order of facts. In this sense smộti or memory is as good a presentative knowledge as any other recognised by the Nyāya or any other school of Indian pbilosopby. The fact that an object is past is as objective as the present existence of another. - Hence inemory as the knowledge of the past as past is a true presentative knowledge (yathāithānubhava) To explain such knowledge of the past we have to accept smrti or memory as a separate source of knowledge (prumāņa).
1 Sortirapi mädäntarameva, erthanıácayahetuträt, anubhavspåratentryannaivam ut cet, da, utpattipäratantryassa pramāṇāntarasāmyat Adbikaparı pramânatvät, anyatbă tadvyavastbipopapatteh, tatrávacchinath hi emrtirarthain. akalayatı, fi ca yadı pūrvānubhavasyäpi gocarah, tadá tatrápi tadityallokbab syst... na cet smptireva taträna pekçeti mánat, Nyāyalilāvati, pp 67-68
3 Cf. H. H. Price, Perception, p 11: "The past 16 as much a part of the real world as the present, and quite to interesting"

Page #426

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
409 Among Western thinkers Russell, Hobhouse and others recognise memory as the primary source of all our knowledge concerning the past. They agree in holding that we may know the past in other ways too, for example, by reading history or by inference. But these cannot give us any knowledge of the past unless we have already a direct knowledge of it through memory. Thus Russell says : “ It is obvious that we often remember wbat we have seen or lieard or had otherwise present to our senses, and that in such cases we are still immediately aware of what we remernber, in spite of the fact that it appears as past and not as present. This immediate knowledge by memory 18 the source of all our knowledge concerning the past; without it, there could be no knowledge of the past by inference, since we should never know that there was anything past to be inferred."' 1 In another place Russell observes that memory resembles perception in point of immediacy and differs from it mainly by being referred to the past. 9 Similarly, Hobhouse 8 shows that memory is neither the retention of past experience, nor a mere image of past experience, but an assertion of the past as past on the basis of such retention and images. Without a direct knowledge of the past by memory we cannot understand retention as an effect of past experience nor an image as an image of the past. It cannot be said that we may know the past by inference from the retention or impression of past experience or from its revival as an image. For, as both Prabhācandra * and Hobhouse point out, inference in its turn involves memory. Further, we cannot understand anything as a sign or mark from which to infer tbe past unless we first
1 The Problems of Philosophy, p. 76 1 The Analysis of Mind, p. 178. ? The Theory of Knowledge, Pt 1, Ch. IV Vide Prameyakamalamartanda, ibid.
52–(1117B)

Page #427

410
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
know that past as signified or marked by such and such things Hence Hobhouse takes memory as a fresh postulate of knowledge. “ It is," he says, “a direct or immediate belief about the past, not a belief based on some other truth."i A. C. Ewing also thinks that 'the direct view of memory is clearly true if we have any knowledge of the past at all. If we know the past, it is the past we know and not our present ideas.' It is a mistake to suppose, as the Naiyāyikas do,' that if we are directly aware of the past, the past must be, so to speak, bodily present to our mind or occupy the same position as our present objects of perception. Thus according to these Western thinkers, memory gives us an immediate knowledge of the past just as perception gives us an immediate knowledge of the present. Hence there can be no objection to memory being regarded as true presentative knowledge (yathārthānubhava). This view of the matter removes tbe last vestige of the difficulties in the way of taking smộtı or memory as a pramāņa or source of valid knowledge. In fact, it stands next to perception in the order of priority among the sources of valid knowledge. All sources of knowledge other than perception involve memory of some kind as one of their conditions. Inference cannot take place without the memory of a universal relation between two things (dyāpti). Upamāna or comparison depends on memory of the knowledge communicated by a reliable person. In sabda or testimony we depend on memory in order to understand the meanings of words and to synthesise the meanings of the separate words into the construed meaning of the sentence. Arthāpatti or postulation involves a conflict between the order of our past experience as remembered and that of our present experience. Anupalabdhi or non-perception also
1 Op. cit., p. 76. I Mond, April, 1980, p. 142.

Page #428

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
411
implies a contrast between the memory of something and the absence of perception with regard to it. Hence, finally, we have to accept seven separate sources of knowledge which may be arranged in order of priority as follows : perception, memory, non-perception, inference, comparison, testimony and postulation.
5. Summary and general estimate of Nyāya Epistemology
The Nyāya theory of knowledge discusses all the important problems of logic and the relevant problems of metaphysics. It formulates a realistic theory and tries to meet the idealist's objections against realism as a system of pbilosophy. According to it, knowledge is a quality of the soul, a hich manifests the objects of the world. All knowledge of objects, however, is not valid. For knowledge, to be valid means to be given (anubhava) in some way or other, and to have an assurance of truth in it. The truth of knowledge consists in its correspondence to real facts and the test of truth lies in its pragmatic value and the coherence or 'consilience' of its different parts. It follows from this that memory and dream, doubt, error and hypothetical reasoning (tarka) cannot be regarded as valid knowledge, since they are either not given or not true cognitions of objects. These are, therefore, brought by the Naiyāyikas under the class of non-valıd knowledge which includes all cognitions wbich are either not given and true, or are false. The falsity of knowledge is constituted by its non-correspondence to facts and is known through failure of the practical activities inspired by it. It follows that truth and falsity are not intrinsic to knowledge and that these are extrinsic characters determined by external conditions like correspondence and non-correspondence to reality respectively. So also, no knowledge is by itself kpown to be true or false. That is, truth or falsity is not self-evident in any know

Page #429

414
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
and non-syllogistic, pure and mixed. Having regard to their purposes, or the nature of vyāpti, or the nature of the induction on which it is based, inferences are classified into svārtha and parārtha, or into pūrvavat, sesavat and sāmânyatodȚşta, or into kevalānvayi, kevala-vyatireki and anvaya-vyatireki. The fallacies of inference are all material fallacies which affect the truth of the propositions involved in inference. They ultimately arise out of a fallacious reason or middle term. There are six kinds of fallacious middle terms which violate one or other of the conditions of a valid middle term. A logically valid inference must be free from all kinds of fallacies.
Comparison is the source of our knowledge of the denotation of a word on the basis of a given description of the objects denoted by it. Thus & man may be told : “A gavaya is an animal resembling the cow" If, on subyequently seeing a gavaya, he is able to give its name, we are to say that he understands the denotation of the word through comparison. Comparison is of different kinds, according to tbe different terms in which the description may be given. It is true that comparison involves an element of perception and of testimony. The description comes to us as the statement of some authority and, as such, is a kind of verbal testimony. So also, we know by perception that certain objects possess the characters mentioned in the given description. Sull comparison cannot be reduced to perception and testimony, because these will not explain the application of the name to the relevant objects, which is the essence of comparison. Nor can we explam it by inference, for when we know the denotation of a word from a given description, we do not reason syllogistically, but simply compare certain objects with a given description. To understand the denotation of a word in this way requires a selective activity of the mind, which is different from perception, inference and testimony.

Page #430

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
Therefore, comparison is a distinct method knowledge.
415
or source of
Testimony is the statement of an authoritative person, which serves to give us true knowledge about certain objects. It may come to us in the form of either spoken or written words and may relate to perceptible or imperceptible objects. In any case, there must be a significant combination of the words according to four conditions. They must imply one another and express compatible ideas There must be adequate proximity among them, and they must convey the intention of the speaker or the writer who uses them. Testimony is the source of the greater part of a man's knowledge of the world. As the verbal knowledge of objects, it is distinct from all other kinds of knowledge. Perception, inference or comparison cannot take the place of testimony, although there may be in it an element of this or that other knowledge. It is true that testimony ultimately depends on perception or inference for its validity or for the proof of its validity. Again, there may sometimes be a conflict of authorities. Since, however, these difficulties are not peculiar to it, but rather common to all the sources of human knowledge, there is no reason why testimony should not be recognised as an independent method of knowledge like perception and inference. If in spite of the conflict of perceptions or of inferences, and the need of their mutual verification, we accept them as independent methods, we must accept testimony and comparison also as equally independent sources of knowledge. All other sources of valid knowledge including non-perception and postulation are brought by the Naiyayikas under perception, inference, comparison and testimony. Non-perception need not be admitted as a separate source of knowledge to explain our knowledge of non-existence, for it may be perceived by us as adjectival to the existent object which is its locus. So also, postulation may be reduced to vyatireki inference ani need not be made a separate method

Page #431

412
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
ledge, but must be evidenced by external conditions like the success or failure of practical activity.
There are four kinds of vald knowledge and so four distinct and independent methods of knowledge. These are : perception, inference, comparison and testimony. While the old Naiyāyıkas define perception as an unerring cognition produced by sense-object contact, the moderns define it as immediate knowledge or as knowledge not brought about by any antecedent knowledge. There are five external senses and an internal sense called manas wbich is necessary to explain the perception of the soul and its states and processes. The individual soul is an eternal and allpervading substance which is not essentially conscious, but has the quality of consciousness when it comes into relation with external objects through the senses. Corresponding to the six senses, there are six kinds of ordinary perceptions which give us direct knowledge of all perceptible objects including substances, their qualities and actions, universals, relations and the four kinds of non-existence. Tbere are seven categories of reality, of which six stand foi positive, and the last for negative facts. Of positive tacts, substance, attribute and action are said to be existents, while generality, particularity and inherence are called subsistents Non-existence is a negative but real fact and, according to the Naiyāyıka, there may be a direct perception of it along with that of the positive fact which it qualifies Of ordinary perception, there are three modes, namely, the nirvikalpaka, the sazikalpala and pratyabhijñā or recognition. These represent different stages in the development of our perceptual consciousnees, but they are equally valid and refer to real contents of the objects of perception. In addition to ordinary perception, the modern Naiyāyikas distinguish three kinds of extraordinary perception called sāmānyalakşaņa, jñānalakṣana and yogaja. The first two are recognised by them as necessary to explain the peroep

Page #432

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
413
tion of objects by senses wbich are not ordinarily competent to perceive them, and the last to explain the supernormal cognition of objects, which cannot be brought about by any sense.
Inference is a type of syllogistic reasoning in which we pass from the apprehension of some mark or sign as related to an object, to something else, by virtue of a relation of invariable concomitance between the two. It is an argument in which some thinker asserts that a certain proposition is true because certain other propositions, which imply it, are asserted to be true. Thus inference is a combined deductiveinductive process which ensures both the validity of the reasoning employed and the truth of the conclusion reached. An inference must have as its constituents three terms and at least three propositions. There are three conditions of valid inference, namely, vyāptı or a universal relation between the middle and the major term, pakşatā or the assertion of the minor term, and lingaparāmarsa or a synthetic view of the middle term as related to the major, on the one hand, and the minor, on the other. Vyāpti is the logical ground on which the validity of inference depends. It is an inductive gener alısation based ultimately on the direct perception of the universal in the particular. Pakşatā is the psychological ground which conditions the possibility of interence and is defined by the modern Naiyayıkas as the absence of the condition in which there is certainty but no will to infer. Lingaparāmarśa as the correlation of the major, middle and minor terms is useful for demonstrating the truth of the conclusion. These three steps, together with the initial statement of the object of inference and the final conclusion, give us the five-membered form of the syllogism. Since inference is a combined deductive-inductive reasoning in the form of a categorical syllogism, we have not a classification of inferences into deductive and inductive, immediate and mediate, syllogistic

Page #433

416
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
of knowledge. For the Naiyāyikas, then, there are four distinct and independent sources of knowledge.
As a realistic theory of knowledge, based on the evidence of direct experience, the Nyāya epistemology has a strong appeal to our common sense. It has also a great value for the orientation of pbilosophical problems from the commonsense standpoint. But undue reliance on uncriticised experiences and common sense bas been the cause of certain defects in the Nyāya theory. The Nyāya conception of knowledge as an adventitious quality of the soul substance is true neither to the nature of knowledge nor to that of the soul. To say that knowledge is a quality is to leave unexplained the fact of self-transcendence and ideal reference to objects, which is inberent in knowledge. As we bave already observed, knowledge is the most fundamental fact of reality. The distinctions of substance and quality, subject and object, all fall within knowledge and are intelligible only on the ground of knowledge. In this sense knowledge is the essence of the ultimate reality which we call the soul or the self. It does not require to be attached as a quality to any other reality, say matter or mind or soul. It 18 just the self-expression of reality itself. If this be true, then we must give up the Nyāya theory of the individual self as a substance wbich is not essentially conscious, but is accidentally qualified by consciousness when associated with a body. Such a view of the self is contradicted by the evidence of our introspective consciousness which reveals the self as a conscious subject and not as a thing with the quality of consciousness. Furtber, on this theory, the disembodied soul will bave no consciousness and will, therefore, be indistinguishable from a material substance So also, we must give up the idea of an ultimate dualism or opposition between subject and object, mind and matter. To the ordinary understanding, these appear to be two opposed substances which can hardly come into any relation with one another. The

Page #434

OTHER SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
417
Naiyāyika does not go far beyond this common-sense view when be treats the psychological distinction between knowledge and its object as the ground of an ultimate dualism between soul and matter as two realities. In truth, however, the distinction between subject and object, mind and matter is a relative distinction made within knowledge. So it presupposes the reality of a transcendent self which makes the distinction and is the ground of both the objective and subjective, the material and mental orders of existence. On the purely logical side also the Nyāya theory appears to be inadequate on some points. The view that truth is not self-evident in any knowledge, but requires in all cases to be evidenced by independent grounds, logically commits us to the fallacy of infipite regress. But, as we have already seen, the self is a self-evident reality which does not require and possibly cannot admit of any other proof, for every proof presupposes the reality of the self as concerned in the act of proving. Some Naiyāyikas practically admit this when they say tbat the truth of self-consciousness (anuvyavasāya) is self-evident. So also, there seems to be no good ground for the Naiyāyıka's refusal to admit memory, non-perception and postulation as independent ways of knowing. But for memory, we cannot have any knowledge of the past. Memory cannot be explained as a reproduction of past experiences, due solely to the impressions left by them. We could not know certain states as impressions or reproductions of past experiences, if we had not already known the past directly through memory. We may have a direct knowledge of the fact of non-existence, just as we have that of existent facts. But from this we should not conclude that tbis direct experience is as much a matter of sense perception in the one case as in the other. The truth of the matter is that while the existent is perceived, what is non-existent is not perceived, and that directly in both cases. Postulation is not the deduction of a conclusion from given
53—(1117B)

Page #435

118
NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
premises, but the necessary supposition of a general principle as the only explanation of some given facts. For Kant the existence of God is a postulate of the moral life, not in the sense that it is deducible from certain ethical propositions, but in the sense that it is the only principle which can explain ethical propositions concerning the moral life. So we have to admit memory, non-perception and postulation as three distinct ways of knowing in addition to the four recognised by the Naiyāyika.
Nothing that has been said above by way of criticism should give one the impression that the Nyāya epistemology has no value Such an impression would be entirely wrong In fact, the contubution of the Nyāya theory of knowledge is not really inferior to that of any other theory, Indian oi Western. The method of logical analysis employed by the Nyāya in the study of the problems of logic and metaphysics is a valuable asset for any system of philosophy The charge is often heard against Indian philosophy that its theories are not based on logical reasoning but on religious authority and, therefore, they are dogmatic, rather than critical The Viāva philosophy is a standing repudiation of this charge The theory of knowledge, formulated by the Vyāya, is made the basis not only of the Nyāya-Vaišesika, but also of other Indian systems, with slight modificatious The Nyāya applies the method of logical criticism to solve the problenis of life and reality. It is by means of a sound logic that it tries 10 ascertain the truth and defend it against hostile criticism Many of the contributions of this logic are of great value even at the present day. The realistic logic, or more generally, epistemology of the Nyāya will not suffer by comparison with the modern calıstic theories of the West.

Page #436

Abhava (Non existence), nature of, 191 1, kinds of, 193 f, knowledge of, 195 f, as a source of knowledge, 400 f Abhibitanvaya-vada, 371 f Action (Karma), nature of, 179, kinds of, 180, perception of, 180 Advaitasiddhi, 231, 278, 281 Akbyatı (or Vivekakhyatı), 41 f Alexauder, Space, Time, and Derty, 11 15, 41, 45, 113, 117, 167, 198, 205 Anırvacatiyakhyatı, 10 f Anupalabdhi (Non-cognition), nature ind validity of, 400 f, different views of, 401 f, 117
Anviksiki, 1
Anvitäbhidhana vāda, 373 f Anyuthakhyun, 39 f
INDEX
Artläpitt, nature and validity f, 393 f, diff rent views of, 391 f, 417 18 Asatkhyatı, 40 f Atmakhyāti, 39 f
Attribute, nature and kinds of, 174, per ception of, 175
Azaranavarını, 338, 349
Bhagar adgila, 16 Bhamati, 363
Bhasapariccheda (or Kärhävali).
passim
Bosanquet, B, Logic, 21, 31, 44, 114, 131, 19, 376, 377, Essentials of Logic, 215 Bradley, F H, Principles of Logi, 34, 198, 287, 295, 304, 330, 376, 377
VVI
Cause, definition and different kinds of, 57 58
Chapman and Hen'c, Fundamentals of Logic, 52, 301
Contemporary British Philosophy, 205 Cre ghton JE, Introductory Logic, 283 84
Critical Realism, 17, 15, 113, 132
Dasgupta, S N, Philosophy, XVII
History of Indian
Datt, D M, Sir Ways of Knowing, xv, 286 Didhiti, 1
Dinakarı, 175, 179, 185, 188, 285, 310, 361 Doubt, nature of, 30 f, kinds of, 31 f Dream, nature of, 2 f
Eaton, R M, General Logi 273 71 Error, nature of, 34 35, theories of, 36 f. problems of, 3 81, tests of, Rif
Gautama, 2, passim
Gangesa, Tattvacintamani 5, 31, 32, 137, 264, 308, passim
Hobhouse, L T. Theory of Knowledge, 5, 80, 111, 11, 142, 409, 410 Hollingworth, B L. Psychology, 147 Hypothetical Argument (Tarka), of. 47-18 kinds of, 49 f, parallel of, 52
nature Western
Indefinite cognition, 32 Inference, definition of, 253 f, distinguished from perception, 254 f, constituents of, 256 f, vyaptı as logical ground of, 261 f. question of petitio principu in, 271 f, pak ata as psychological ground of, 277 f, linza paramara as inmediate cause of, 284 f, class fication of, 289 f, lrgical form of, 297 f, fallacies of, 306 f, semi-logical fallacies of, 319
Jaini, J, Outlines of Jamism, 181 James W. Principles of Psychology, 16, 70 365 Radical Empiricism, 18, Pragmatism, 114
Jha
N Prabhakara School of Purva Mimämsä 12, 308, 349, Sādbolal Lectures on The Nyaya Philosophy of Gautama, 1, 42
Joachim, H H, The Nature of Truth, 114 Joad, C E M Introduction to Modern Philosophy, 15
Johnson. W E, Logu. 234, 376 Toseph, HWB Introduction to Logu, 303, 304
Keith. A B, Indian Logic and Atomism,
XVII Kant 3, 194
Klemm O, History of Psychology, 160 Knowledge (Buddhi), definition of, 9f.
ontological problem of 14 f, act theory of 14 f, elation theory of 17 f, quality theory of, 19 f, classification of, 21 f. 116 17
Kohler W, Gestalt Psychology, 173 Kuppuswami Sastu, Primer of Indian Logic, xvi, 369 Kusumāñjal, 57,86 140
Lossky, NO, Intustre Basis of Know ledge, 43, 55, 112

Page #437

420
INDEX
Manameyodaya, 99 f
Manas (Mind), nature and function of, 157 f, passim McDougall, W, Outline of Psychology, 76 Meaning, nature and kinds of, 353 f Mellone S H, Introductory Text-Book of Logic, 376
Memory (Smrti), definition of, 23-21, conditions of, 24-25 kinds of, 25 f, as an independent source of knowledge, 405 f, 410, 417
Mill, J S System of Logic, 127, 128, 181, 241
Mimämsä-Sutra, 136, passim
Mind, 37, 43, 134, 378 Mitabhasini 33, 226
Monist, 119, 132 Montague, W P, The Ways of Knowing, 386
New Realism, 3, 18, 45, 64, 113, 128 Nyaya-Bhasya, xvii, 214. 806, passim Nyayabındu, 129, 254 266 f Nyayabindutikā, 12, passim Nyayakandali, 391, passim Nyayakośa, 188, 207 Nyayalilavati, 391, 408
Nyāyamañjarī, xvi, 12, passim Nyayavärttika, xvII, 2, 214, passim Nyayavarttikatat paryaparıśuddhi, xvu, 109 Nyayarärttikatätparyatikā, xv, 2, 214,
passim
Vyaya-Sutra, xv1, XVII, 5, 214, 308, passim Nyaya-Sutra-Vrtti, xvi, xv11, 334, passin Nyaya-Sutra Vivarana, 334
Padarthadharmasamgraha, 298, 308 Pañcästikäyasara, 175 Parsons, JH Introduction to the Theory of Perception, 137
Particularity Visesa), nature and kinds of, 184 f, not perceived, 185 Perception, primacy of, 125, definition
of, 129 f, psychology of, 143 f, kinds and objects of, 199 f, Nirvikalpaka and Savikalpaka 207 f, Recognition as a mode of, 224 f, extraordinary 228 f Perry RB, Present Philosophical Tendencies 114
Persistent knowledge, 68 f Prakarana pañcikā, 71, 133, 202 Prama, characte istics of, 54 f Pramana, different views of, 59 f Pramanasamurcaya. 13, 211. 258 Prameyakamalamartanda, 133, 144, 222,
226, 254, 331 349, 381, 406, 409 Price, H H, Perception, 120, 144, 170, 172, 408
Pringle-Pattison, Iden of Immortality, 67 Proposition, sentence and, 376 f, import
of, 377 f, subject-predicate and impera. tive, 378, identity and relational, 879 f Psychologies of 1925, 173 Psychological Review, 202
XVII
Radhakrishnan, S., Indian Philosophy, Ramanuja, Sribhāṣya, 39, 162, 209 222 Ramarudri, 810
Reid, L. A, Knowledge and Truth. 17, 18, 20, 111, 114, 116, 117 Relation, nature and kiuds of, 185 f, per ception of 187 f
Royce. J, The World and the Individual, 365
Russell, B., Analysis of Mind, 13. 15, 114.
161, 167, 199 202 409, Our Knowledge of the External World, 17, 114, 128, 379, Outline of Pht osophy, 16, 37, 386, Principles of Mathematics, 279, Problems of Philosophy, 17, 27, 53, 67, 114, 118, 128, 134, 184, 187, 409
Sabda (Testimony), definition of, 345-46, kinds of, 316 f, different views of, 347 f, independent validity of, 381 f Sabdasakti-prakāśikā, 353 f, 361, 376, 383,
385, 386
Samavaya, nature of, 186 f, perception of, 187 f, criticism of, 188 f
Samkara, Commentary on Brahma-Sutra, 188, 363-64 Samkhyakarika, 136, 148, 158 Samkhyapravacanabhäsya, 136 Samkhya-sutra, 136 Saptapadarthi, 22, 33, 34, 55 Sarvadarśanasamgraha, 57, 5, 75, 84, 191 211, 265 f, 270, 280, 348 Sastradipika, 12, 136, 361, passim Schiller, F C S, Logic for Use, 875 Sel, B N, The Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus, xv, 300
Self, nature of, 161-63, function in pereption, 161 f, realistic theory of, 164, 416-17
Sense, nature of, 143 f, k.nds of, 145 f, function of, 151 Sentence, nature and construction of,
366 f, meaning of, 371 f, import of, 375 f, proposition and, 376 f Siddhantacandrikā, 223, passim Siddhantamuktavali, 86, 285 f, 340, 861,
passim
Sir Buddhist Nyaya Tracts, 181 Slokatärttika, 186, 258, 864
Spencer, H, Principles of Psychology, 15 Sphota, theory of, 362-65 Stebbing, LS, A Modern Introduction
to Logic, 73, 232 f, 279, 281, 303, 804, 361; Logic in Practice, 92, 141, 142, 232, 371, 386
Stout, G F.. Analytic Psychology, 205; Manual of Psychology, 205, 240, 245 Substance, nature and kinds of, 168, perception of, 169 f
Tarkabhaga, xvi, 140, 858, passim Tarkakaumudi, 407, passim

Page #438

INDEX
Tarkāmsta, xvii, passem
| Vedanta-Parbhāşa, 283, passim Tarkasangraha, xvn, 286, 353, passim Vidyabhūsana, Š c, History of Indian Tattoacıntāmanı, xvii, passim
Logic, 5, 348 Tattvadīpika, 356, parsim Tattvakaumudi, 144, 286 338, 319, 396
Vivaranaprameyasaṁgraha, 358, 359, 873, Titch-per, E B, Text-Book of Psychology, ! Vyasa-Bhåşya, 136
16, 70, 146, 147, 150, 365 Truth, definition of, 84 f, problems of, 83, tests and theories of, 83 f
Watson, J B , Behaviour, 15 Wond north, R , Psychology 28, 38
Words, sounds and, 331 f,dature of, 3521 . Universal, d fferent views of, 180 f , per meanings of, 353 f , kinds of, 857 f , ception of, 182-184
import of 3581, unity of, 362 Upainada (Comparison) deficition of, Wundt, W. Human and Animal Psycho
325 f , Jaipa, Mimămsā ad Vedānta logy, 240 views of, 327 f, classification of, 332 f, independent validity of, 335 f
Yoga-sútra, 136, 390, passim Upaskata, 33, 196
Yoga-Bhasya, 349, passim
421

Page #439


Page #440
_