________________ Pancastikaya-samgraha constitute pramana for oneself. But scriptural knowledge is of both kinds - for oneself and for others. Valid knowledge or knowledge itself constitutes pramana for oneself and knowledge in form of words constitutes pramana for others. The naya are divisions of pramana. To comprehend the object from one particular standpoint is the scope of naya (the one-sided method of comprehension). Naya comprehends one specific attribute of the object but pramana - valid knowledge - comprehends the object in its fullness. Pramana does not make distinction between the substance and its attributes but grasps the object in its entirety. But naya looks at the object from a particular point-of-view and puts emphasis on a particular aspect of the object. Both pramana and naya are forms of knowledge; pramana is sakaladesa - comprehensive and absolute, and naya is vikaladesa - partial and relative. Naya looks at the object from a particular point-of-view and presents the picture of it in relation to that view; the awareness of other aspects is in the background and not ignored. Thus, partial knowledge from a particular point-of-view that is under consideration is the object of naya and it helps in accuracy of expression through illustration (drstanta). Naya deals only with the particular pointof-view of the speaker and does not deny the remaining points-of-view, not under consideration at that time. Pramana is the source or origin of naya. It has been said in the Scripture, "On the acquisition of knowledge of a substance derived from pramana, ascertaining its one particular state or mode is naya." Naya is neither pramana nor apramana (not-pramana). It is a part of pramana. A drop of water of the ocean can neither be considered the ocean nor the non-ocean; it is a part of the ocean. Similarly, a soldier is neither an army nor a non-army; he is a part of the army. The same argument goes with naya. Naya is partial presentation of the nature of the object while pramana is comprehensive. Naya does neither give false knowledge nor does it deny the existence of other aspects of knowledge. There are as many naya as there are points-of-view. As regard the fruit of pramana, there is satisfaction in the attainment of knowledge. The soul, whose knowledge-nature is clouded by the foreign matter of karmas, finds satisfaction in determining the nature of substances with the help of the senses. That is spoken of as the fruit of . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. XXVI
