Comparative Study of Indian Science

Author(s): Harisatya Bhattacharya
Publisher: C S Mallinath

Page 21

either ‘Pratyaksha' or 'Anumana.' 'Sambhava' again, is clearly a form of inference. A Jaina commentator points out: 'Khari includes or consists o Drona; because it is Khari ;' the italicised words indicate the Hetu of the implied inference which because of its immediacy is not consciously cognised. Hence the great Miniansaka scholar Bhatta and the Vedantins refuse to admit Sambhava', 'Aitihya' and · Pratibha 'as special sources of valid knowledge and regard 'Pratyaksha' 'Anumana' 'Sabda',
Upamana', 'Arthapatti' and 'Abhava - these six only as the Pramanas. Prabhakara, another illustrious scholar of the Mimansaka school, rejected, however, the claim of 'Abhava' as a separate source of knowledge and maintained that the Pramanas are five in number. The Nyaya schools, on the contrary, contend that, "Pratyaksha, Anumana, Upamana and Sabda are the sources of Knowledge." (Nyaya-Sutra, 1. 1.3). · Abhava,' the Nyaya thinkers urge, is a mode of Pratyaksha. 'Arthapatti' also is not a separate source of Knowledge; as the author of Bhasha-Parichchheda says, " Arthapatti is not a scparate source of knowledge; it is accomplished through the recognition of a 'Vyatireka-Vyapli' or negative relationship between the Mark and the Proven." As regards the Sankhya position - reference may be made to Aphorism, 86.