________________
Society, Epistemology and Logic in Indian Tradition
132
asti hyālocanājñānam prathamam nirvikalpakam 1 bālamūkādi vijñānasaděśam śuddha-vastujam 11
-Ślokavārtika, pratyakșa sūtra, 112 He says that after a sense-object contact, first of all indeterminate (nirvikalpaka) perception is experienced which is bare perception, similar to the perception of a baby and a dumb person. This is the perception produced by the object and it is devoid of verbal designation. This definition of nirvikalpatā has affinity with that of Dignāga.
Kumārila explains the adjective śuddha- vastujam as follows:
na viśeşo na sāmānyam tadānīm anubhūyate. / tayor ādhārabhūtā tu, vyaktir evāvasīyate. Il
-Slokavārtika, pratyakșa sūtra, 113 “The cognition per se that arises through the object can not differentiate and generalise that particular object. There is a mere cognition of an object, of something, which then becomes the basis of generality and particularity.”
In his critique of Indian realism D.N. Shastri 1976 (P 437-438)says that a clear-cut distinction between nirvikalpaka and savikalpaka perception was introduced for the first time in Indian philosophy by Dignāga. Kumārila Bhatta seems to have been influenced by Dignāga when he defines nirvikalpaka as suddhavastujam. (produced from pure form of reality)
In Kumārila's view, after an indeterminate perception (nirvikalpaka), a determinate perception also occurs which is also a valid cognition. Here it is to be noted that according to Dignāga determinate perception is not a
