________________
The Nyaya Conception of Universals
In other words, not this or that fire, but fire as determined by its universal (vahnitva) is the cause of smoke as determined by its universal (dhūmatva). This determination by means of universals makes the relation between cause and effect universally valid. But the Buddhist cannot appeal to any such determinant as he seeks to repudiate objective universals.
The Buddhist may contend that if the determination by universals be necessary for the universal validity of the causal relation, such a determinant is not lacking in the case of conceptual thought and activity towards a real. The concept of fire will lead to the attainment of real fire and all such concepts have got a common content, viz., the negation of the opposite. So there is no difficulty in the way of the causal relation. But the question is whether activity presupposes a knowledge of its object or not. If the knowledge of the object of activity were a condition of the said activity, then conceptual knowledge would not lead to activity towards a real, as no real could be the object of conceptual knowledge according to the Buddhist. If, on the other hand, the Buddhist would maintain that conceptual thought leads to the attainment of a real by virtue of the necessity of causal power and that the knowledge of the real object of the activity is irrelevant, then conception of fire should always lead to the attainment of fire. But it is common knowledge that when the light of a jewel is mistaken for fire, the activity is directed towards what is not fire. If the causality between conception and activity were to operate as a law of blind necessity, then the conception of fire would of a necessity lead to the attainment of a real fire just like the causality of fire and smoke which never fails. If it were conceded that the erroneous cognition of fire in default of the expected cognition of the jewel's light were determinant of causal activity, there is absolutely no reason why the cognition of the object of activity should not be made the universal condition of activity towards it. But this would mean that a cognition is invariably cognisant of an object. When the object is actually present in the relevant spatio-temporal context, the cognition in question, perceptual or otherwise, is veridical. If the object be not actually present, the cognition is regarded as erroneous.
Jñanaśri has contended that the Buddhist does not rely upon
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
249
www.jainelibrary.org
