________________
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.
