________________
The Nyāya Conception of Universals
245
cognition to be caused by its object, do not also think that causality determines its cognitive relation. The two are kept apart and never confounded. It is an accident that the cognitive relation between perceptual cognition and its object coincides with causal relation between them. In non-perceptual cognition the cognitive relation is independent of causality. The Buddhist makes the coincidence of the two relations in perceptual cognition a universal rule and so makes no scruple to deny the reality of cognitive relation in non-perceptual cognition on the ground of the absence of causality. It is to be decided whether the Buddhist's theory is based upon an assumption or truth.
Udayana observes that causality has nothing to do with objective reference. Jñānaśri seeks to establish that the objective reference of conceptual cognitions is vicarious, being derived from its cause. The position could be accepted, if it were shown that the effect had the same objective reference with its cause as a matter of universal necessity. But this cannot be made out. The cognition of "yellow' is believed by the Buddhist to be the effect of the cognition of 'blue' which has preceded it. The effect has not however the same objective reference with the cause here. But the Buddhist may contend that the rule does not operate in the case of perceptual cognitions, which have different objects as their causes. It has reference only to conceptual thoughts, which are derived from perceptual intuitions and purport to have the same reference with the latter. But the amendment of the original position also does not improve the situation. It is assumed that conceptual thought has no independent reference and the first assumption is derived from a wider assumption that two kinds of cognitions cannot have reference to the same object. But both assumptions are unwarranted as no proof has been adduced in support except those arguments which have already been shown to be inconclusive. If causal relation were determinant of objective reference, there is no reason to ear-mark it to specific cases. It is a simple matter. Is causality determinant of objective reference at all ? If so, is it director indirect causality ? In the first alternative, verbal and inferential knowledge should not inspire volitional activity, since they are derived from knowledge of conventional relation (sariketa) or necessary concomitance, which are conceptual in character. Their
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
