We perceived in many cases that a li@nga (e.g. smoke) was associated with a li@ngin (fire), and had thence formed the notion



[Footnote 1: See Nyayamanjari on anumana.]

346

that wherever there was smoke there was fire. Now when we perceived that there was smoke in yonder hill, we remembered the concomitance (_vyapti_) of smoke and fire which we had observed before, and then since there was smoke in the hill, which was known to us to be inseparably connected with fire, we concluded that there was fire in the hill. The discovery of the li@nga (smoke) in the hill as associated with the memory of its concomitance with fire (_t@rtiya-li@nga-paramars'a) is thus the cause (_anumitikara@na_ or _anumana_) of the inference (_anumiti_). The concomitance of smoke with fire is technically called _vyapti._ When this refers to the concomitance of cases containing smoke with those having fire, it is called _bahirvyapti_; and when it refers to the conviction of the concomitance of smoke with fire, without any relation to the circumstances under which the concomitance was observed, it is called _antarvyapti._ The Buddhists since they did not admit the notions of generality, etc. preferred antarvyapti view of concomitance to bahirvyapti as a means of inference [Footnote ref 1].

Now the question arises that since the validity of an inference will depend mainly on the validity of the concomitance of sign (hetu) with the signate (sadhya), how are we to assure ourselves in each case that the process of ascertaining the concomitance (vyaptigraha) had been correct, and the observation of concomitance had been valid. The Mima@msa school held, as we shall see in the next chapter, that if we had no knowledge of any such case in which there was smoke but no fire, and if in all the cases I knew I had perceived that wherever there was smoke there was fire, I could enunciate the concomitance of smoke with fire. But Nyaya holds that it is not enough that in all cases where there is smoke there should be fire, but it is necessary that in all those cases where there is no fire there should not be any smoke, i.e. not only every case of the existence of smoke should be a case of the existence of fire, but every case of absence of fire should be a case of absence of smoke. The former is technically called anvayavyapti and the latter vyatirekavyapti. But even this is not enough. Thus there may have been an ass sitting, in a hundred cases where I had seen smoke, and there might have been a hundred cases where there was neither ass nor smoke, but it cannot be asserted from it that there is any relation of concomitance,



[Footnote 1: See Antarvyaptisamarthana, by Ratnakaras'anti in the Six Buddhist Nyaya Tracts, Bibliotheca Indica, 1910.]

347

or of cause and effect between the ass and the smoke. It may be that one might never have observed smoke without an antecedent ass, or an ass without the smoke following it, but even that is not enough. If it were such that we had so experienced in a very large number of cases that the introduction of the ass produced the smoke, and that even when all the antecedents remained the same, the disappearance of the ass was immediately followed by the disappearance of smoke (yasmin sati bhavanam yato vina na bhavanam iti bhuyodars'ana@m, Nyayamanjari, p. 122), then only could we say that there was any relation of concomitance (vyapti} between the ass and the smoke [Footnote ref 1]. But of course it might be that what we concluded to be the hetu by the above observations of anvaya-vyatireka might not be a real hetu, and there might be some other condition (upadhi) associated with the hetu which was the real hetu. Thus we know that fire in green wood (ardrendhana) produced smoke, but one might doubt that it was not the fire in the green wood that produced smoke, but there was some hidden demon who did it. But there would be no end of such doubts, and if we indulged in them, all our work endeavour and practical activities would have to be dispensed with (vyaghata). Thus such doubts as lead us to the suspension of all work should not disturb or unsettle the notion of vyapti or concomitance at which we had arrived by careful observation and consideration [Footnote ref 2]. The Buddhists and the naiyayikas generally agreed as to the method of forming the notion of concomitance or vyapti (vyaptigraha), but the former tried to assert that the validity of such a concomitance always depended on a relation of cause and effect or of identity of essence, whereas Nyaya held that neither the relations of cause and effect, nor that of essential identity of genus and species, exhausted the field of inference, and there was quite a number of other types of inference which could not be brought under either of them (e.g. the rise of the moon and the tide of the ocean). A natural fixed order that certain things happening other things would happen could certainly exist, even without the supposition of an identity of essence.

But sometimes it happens that different kinds of causes often have the same kind of effect, and in such cases it is difficult to



[Footnote 1: See Tatparya@tika on anumana and vyaptigraha.]

[Footnote 2: Tatparya@tika on vyaptigraha, and Tattvacintama@ni of Ga@nges'a on vyaptigraha.]

348

infer the particular cause from the effect. Nyaya holds however that though different causes are often found to produce the same effect, yet there must be some difference between one effect and another. If each effect is taken by itself with its other attendant circumstances and peculiarities, it will be found that it may then be possible to distinguish it from similar other effects. Thus a flood in the street may be due either to a heavy downpour of rain immediately before, or to the rise in the water of the river close by, but if observed carefully the flooding of the street due to rain will be found to have such special traits that it could be distinguished from a similar flooding due to the rise of water in the river. Thus from the flooding of the street of a special type, as demonstrated by its other attendant circumstances, the special manner in which the water flows by small rivulets or in sheets, will enable us to infer that the flood was due to rains and not to the rise of water in the river. Thus we see that Nyaya relied on empirical induction based on uniform and uninterrupted agreement in nature, whereas the Buddhists assumed a priori principles of causality or identity of essence. It may not be out of place here to mention that in later Nyaya works great emphasis is laid on the necessity of getting ourselves assured that there was no such upadhi (condition) associated with the hetu on account of which the concomitance happened, but that the hetu was unconditionally associated with the sadhya in a relation of inseparable concomitance. Thus all fire does not produce smoke; fire must be associated with green wood in order to produce smoke. Green wood is thus the necessary condition (upadhi) without which, no smoke could be produced. It is on account of this condition that fire is associated with smoke; and so we cannot say that there is smoke because there is fire. But in the concomitance of smoke with fire there is no condition, and so in every case of smoke there is fire. In order to be assured of the validity of vyapti, it is necessary that we must be assured that there should be nothing associated with the hetu which conditioned the concomitance, and this must be settled by wide experience (bhuyodars'ana).

Pras'astapada in defining inference as the "knowledge of that (e.g. fire) associated with the reason (e.g. smoke) by the sight of the reason" described a valid reason (li@nga) as that which is connected with the object of inference (anumeya) and which exists wherever the object of inference exists and is absent in all cases

349

where it does not exist. This is indeed the same as the Nyaya qualifications of _pak@sasattva, sapak@sasattva and _vipak@sasattva_ of a valid reason (hetu). Pras'astapada further quotes a verse to say that this is the same as what Kas'yapa (believed to be the family name of Ka@nada) said. Ka@nada says that we can infer a cause from the effect, the effect from the cause, or we can infer one thing by another when they are mutually connected, or in opposition or in a relation of inherence (IX. ii. 1 and III. i. 9). We can infer by a reason because it is duly associated (_prasiddhipurvakatva_) with the object of inference. What this association was according to Ka@nada can also be understood for he tells us (III. i. 15) that where there is no proper association, the reason (hetu) is either non-existent in the object to be inferred or it has no concomitance with it (_aprasiddha_) or it has a doubtful existence _sandigdha_). Thus if I say this ass is a horse because it has horns it is fallacious, for neither the horse nor the ass has horns. Again if I say it is a cow because it has horns, it is fallacious, for there is no concomitance between horns and a cow, and though a cow may have a horn, all that have horns are not cows. The first fallacy is a combination of pak@sasattva and sapak@sasattva, for not only the present pak@sa (the ass) had no horns, but no horses had any horns, and the second is a case of vipak@sasattva, for those which are not cows (e.g. buffaloes) have also horns. Thus, it seems that when Pras'astapada says that he is giving us the view of Ka@nada he is faithful to it. Pras'astapada says that wherever there is smoke there is fire, if there is no fire there is no smoke. When one knows this concomitance and unerringly perceives the smoke, he remembers the concomitance and feels certain that there is fire. But with regard to Ka@nada's enumeration of types of inference such as "a cause is inferred from its effect, or an effect from the cause," etc., Pras'astapada holds that these are not the only types of inference, but are only some examples for showing the general nature of inference. Inference merely shows a connection such that from this that can be inferred. He then divides inference into two classes, d@r@s@ta (from the experienced characteristics of one member of a class to another member of the same class), and samanyato d@r@s@ta. D@r@s@ta (perceived resemblance) is that where the previously known case and the inferred case is exactly of the same class. Thus as an example of it we can point out that by perceiving that only a cow has a hanging mass of flesh on its neck (_sasna_), I can whenever I see the same hanging

350

mass of flesh at the neck of an animal infer that it is a cow. But when on the strength of a common quality the inference is extended to a different class of objects, it is called samanyato d@r@s@ta. Thus on perceiving that the work of the peasants is rewarded with a good harvest I may infer that the work of the priests, namely the performance of sacrifices, will also be rewarded with the objects for which they are performed (i.e. the attainment of heaven). When the conclusion, to which one has arrived (svanis'citartha) is expressed in five premisses for convincing others who are either in doubt, or in error or are simply ignorant, then the inference is called pararthanumana. We know that the distinction of svarthanumana (inference for oneself) and pararthanumana (inference for others) was made by the Jains and Buddhists. Pras'astapada does not make a sharp distinction of two classes of inference, but he seems to mean that what one infers, it can be conveyed to others by means of five premisses in which case it is called pararthanumana. But this need not be considered as an entirely new innovation of Pras'astapada, for in IX. 2, Ka@nada himself definitely alludes to this distinction (asyeda@m karyyakara@nasambandhas'cavayavadbhavati). The five premisses which are called in Nyaya pratijna, hetu d@r@s@tanta, upanaya, and nigamana are called in Vais'e@sika pratijna, apades'a, nidars'ana, anusandhana, and pratyamnaya. Ka@nada however does not mention the name of any of these premisses excepting the second "apades'a." Pratijna is of course the same as we have in Nyaya, and the term nidars'ana is very similar to Nyaya d@r@s@tanta, but the last two are entirely different. Nidars'ana may be of two kinds, (1) agreement in presence (e.g. that which has motion is a substance as is seen in the case of an arrow), (2) agreement in absence (e.g. what is not a substance has no motion as is seen in the case of the universal being [Footnote ref l]). He also points out cases of the fallacy of the example



{Footnote 1: Dr Vidyabhu@sa@na says that "An example before the time of Dignaga served as a mere familiar case which was cited to help the understanding of the listener, e.g. The hill is fiery; because it has smoke; like a kitchen (example). Asa@nga made the example more serviceable to reasoning, but Dignaga converted it into a universal proposition, that is a proposition expressive of the universal or inseparable connection between the middle term and the major term, e.g. The hill is fiery; because it has smoke; all that has smoke is fiery as a kitchen" (Indian Logic, pp. 95, 96). It is of course true that Vatsyayana had an imperfect example as "like a kitchen" (s'abda@h utpatvidharmakatvadanuya@h sthalyadivat, I.i. 36), but Pras'astapada has it in the proper form. Whether Pras'astapada borrowed it from Dig@nnaga or Dig@nnaga from Pras'astapada cannot be easily settled.]

351

(nidars'anabhasa). Pras'astapada's contribution thus seems to consist of the enumeration of the five premisses and the fallacy of the nidars'ana, but the names of the last two premisses are so different from what are current in other systems that it is reasonable to suppose that he collected them from some other traditional Vais'e@sika work which is now lost to us. It however definitely indicates that the study of the problem of inference was being pursued in Vais'e@sika circles independently of Nyaya. There is no reason however to suppose that Pras'astapada borrowed anything from Di@nnaga as Professor Stcherbatsky or Keith supposes, for, as I have shown above, most of Pras'astapada's apparent innovations are all definitely alluded to by Ka@nada himself, and Professor Keith has not discussed this alternative. On the question of the fallacies of nidars'ana, unless it is definitely proved that Di@nnaga preceded Pras'astapada, there is no reason whatever to suppose that the latter borrowed it from the former [Footnote ref 1].

The nature and ascertainment of concomitance is the most important part of inference. Vatsyayana says that an inference can be made by the sight of the li@nga (reason or middle) through the memory of the connection between the middle and the major previously perceived. Udyotakara raises the question whether it is the present perception of the middle or the memory of the connection of the middle with the major that should be regarded as leading to inference. His answer is that both these lead to inference, but that which immediately leads to inference is li@ngaparamars'a, i.e. the present perception of the middle in the minor associated with the memory of its connection with the major, for inference does not immediately follow the memory of the connection, but the present perception of the middle associated with the memory of the connection (sm@rtyanug@rhito li@ngaparamars'o). But he is silent with regard to the nature of concomitance. Udyotakara's criticisms of Di@nnaga as shown by Vacaspati have no reference to this point The doctrine of tadatmya and tadutpatti was therefore in all probability a new contribution to Buddhist logic by Dharmakirtti. Dharmakirtti's contention was that the root principle of the connection between the middle and the major was that the former was either identical in essence with the latter or its effect and that unless this was grasped a mere collection of positive or negative instances will not give us



[Footnote 1: Pras'astapada's bha@sya with Nyayakandali, pp. 200-255.]

352

the desired connection [Footnote ref 1]. Vacaspati in his refutation of this view says that the cause-effect relation cannot be determined as a separate relation. If causality means invariable immediate antecedence such that there being fire there is smoke and there being no fire there is no smoke, then it cannot be ascertained with perfect satisfaction, for there is no proof that in each case the smoke was caused by fire and not by an invisible demon. Unless it can be ascertained that there was no invisible element associated, it cannot be said that the smoke was immediately preceded by fire and fire alone. Again accepting for the sake of argument that causality can be determined, then also cause is known to precede the effect and therefore the perception of smoke can only lead us to infer the presence of fire at a preceding time and not contemporaneously with it. Moreover there are many cases where inference is possible, but there is no relation of cause and effect or of identity of essence (e.g. the sunrise of this morning by the sunrise of yesterday morning). In the case of identity of essence (tadatmya as in the case of the pine and the tree) also there cannot be any inference, for one thing has to be inferred by another, but if they are identical there cannot be any inference. The nature of concomitance therefore cannot be described in either of these ways. Some things (e.g. smoke) are naturally connected with some other things (e.g. fire) and when such is the case, though we may not know any further about the nature of this connection, we may infer the latter from the former and not vice versa, for fire is connected with smoke only under certain conditions (e.g. green wood). It may be argued that there may always be certain unknown conditions which may vitiate the validity of inference. To this Vacaspati's answer is that if even after observing a large number of cases and careful search such conditions (upadhi) cannot be discovered, we have to take it for granted that they do not exist and that there is a natural connection between the middle and the major. The later Buddhists introduced the method of Pancakara@ni in order to determine effectively the causal relation. These five conditions determining the causal relation are (1) neither the cause nor the effect is perceived, (2) the cause is perceived, (3) in immediate succession the effect is perceived, (4) the cause disappears, (5) in



[Footnote 1: Karyyakara@nubhavadva svabhavadva niyamakat avinabhavaniyamo' dars'ananna na dars'anat. Tatparya@tika, p. 105.]

353

immediate succession the effect disappears. But this method cannot guarantee the infallibility of the determination of cause and effect relation; and if by the assumption of a cause-effect relation no higher degree of certainty is available, it is better to accept a natural relation without limiting it to a cause-effect relation [Footnote ref 1].

In early Nyaya books three kinds of inference are described, namely purvavat, s'e@savat, and samanyato-d@r@s@ta. Purvavat is the inference of effects from causes, e.g. that of impending rain from heavy dark clouds; s'e@savat is the inference of causes from effects, e.g. that of rain from the rise of water in the river; samanyato-d@r@s@ta refers to the inference in all cases other than those of cause and effect, e.g. the inference of the sour taste of the tamarind from its form and colour. Nyayamanjari mentions another form of anumana, namely paris'e@samana (reductio ad absurdum), which consists in asserting anything (e.g. consciousness) of any other thing (e.g. atman), because it was already definitely found out that consciousness was not produced in any other part of man. Since consciousness could not belong to anything else, it must belong to soul of necessity. In spite of these variant forms they are all however of one kind, namely that of the inference of the probandum (sadhya) by virtue of the unconditional and invariable concomitance of the hetu, called the vyapti-niyama. In the new school of Nyaya (Navya-Nyaya) a formal distinction of three kinds of inference occupies an important place, namely anvayavyatireki, kevalanvayi, and kevalavyatireki. Anvayavyatireki is that inference where the vyapti has been observed by a combination of a large number of instances of agreement in presence and agreement in absence, as in the case of the concomitance of smoke and fire (wherever there is smoke there is fire (anvaya), and where there is no fire, there is no smoke (vyatireka)). An inference could be for one's own self (svarthanumana) or for the sake of convincing others (pararthanumana). In the latter case, when it was necessary that an inference should be put explicitly in an unambiguous manner, live propositions (avayavas) were regarded as necessary, namely pratijna (e.g. the hill is fiery), hetu (since it has smoke), udahara@na (where there is smoke there is fire, as in the kitchen), upanaya (this hill has smoke), niga@mana (therefore it has got



[Footnote 1: Vatsyaya@na's bhasya, Udyotakara's Varttika and Tatparyya@tika, I.i. 5.]

354

fire). Kevalanvayi is that type of inference, the vyapti of which could not be based on any negative instance, as in the case "this object has a name, since it is an object of knowledge (ida@m, vacyam prameyatvat)." Now no such case is known which is not an object of knowledge; we cannot therefore know of any case where there was no object of knowledge (prameyatva) and no name (vacyatva); the vyapti here has therefore to be based necessarily on cases of agreement—wherever there is prameyatva or an object of knowledge, there is vacyatva or name. The third form of kevalavyatireki is that where positive instances in agreement cannot be found, such as in the case of the inference that earth differs from other elements in possessing the specific quality of smell, since all that does not differ from other elements is not earth, such as water; here it is evident that there cannot be any positive instance of agreement and the concomitance has to be taken from negative instances. There is only one instance, which is exactly the proposition of our inference—earth differs from other elements, since it has the special qualities of earth. This inference could be of use only in those cases where we had to infer anything by reason of such special traits of it as was possessed by it and it alone.

Upamana and S'abda.

The third prama@na, which is admitted by Nyaya and not by Vais'e@sika, is _upamana_, and consists in associating a thing unknown before with its name by virtue of its similarity with some other known thing. Thus a man of the city who has never seen a wild ox (_gavaya_) goes to the forest, asks a forester—"what is gavaya?" and the forester replies—"oh, you do not know it, it is just like a cow"; after hearing this from the forester he travels on, and on seeing a gavaya and finding it to be similar to a cow he forms the opinion that this is a gavaya. This knowing an hitherto unknown thing by virtue of its similarity to a known thing is called _upamana_. If some forester had pointed out a gavaya to a man of the city and had told him that it was called a gavaya, then also the man would have known the animal by the name gavaya, but then this would have been due to testimony (_s'abda-prama@na). The knowledge is said to be generated by the upamana process when the association of the unknown animal with its name is made by the observer

355

on the strength of the experience of the similarity of the unknown animal to a known one. The naiyayikas are thorough realists, and as such they do not regard the observation of similarity as being due to any subjective process of the mind. Similarity is indeed perceived by the visual sense but yet the association of the name in accordance with the perception of similarity and the instruction received is a separate act and is called upamana [Footnote ref 1].

S'abda-prama@na or testimony is the right knowledge which we derive from the utterances of infallible and absolutely truthful persons. All knowledge derived from the Vedas is valid, for the Vedas were uttered by Is'vara himself. The Vedas give us right knowledge not of itself, but because they came out as the utterances of the infallible Is'vara. The Vais'e@sikas did not admit s'abda as a separate prama@na, but they sought to establish the validity of testimony (s'abda) on the strength of inference (anumiti) on the ground of its being the utterance of an infallible person. But as I have said before, this explanation is hardly corroborated by the Vais'e@sika sutras, which tacitly admit the validity of the scriptures on its own authority. But anyhow this was how Vais'e@sika was interpreted in later times.

Negation in Nyaya-Vais'e@sika.

The problem of negation or non-existence (abhava) is of great interest in Indian philosophy. In this section we can describe its nature only from the point of view of perceptibility. Kumarila [Footnote ref 2]



[Footnote 1: See Nyayamanjari on upamana. The oldest Nyaya view was that the instruction given by the forester by virtue of which the association of the name "wild ox" to the strange animal was possible was itself "upamana." When Pras'astapada held that upamana should be treated as a case of testimony (aptavacana), he had probably this interpretation in view. But Udyotakara and Vacaspati hold that it was not by the instruction alone of the forester that the association of the name "wild ox" was made, but there was the perception of similarity, and the memory of the instruction of the forester too. So it is the perception of similarity with the other two factors as accessories that lead us to this association called upamana. What Vatsyaya@na meant is not very clear, but Di@nnaga supposes that according to him the result of upamana was the knowledge of similarity or the knowledge of a thing having similarity. Vacaspati of course holds that he has correctly interpreted Vatsyaya@na's intention. It is however definite that upamana means the associating of a name to a new object (samakhyasambandhapratipattirupamanartha@h, Vatsyaya@na). Jayanta points out that it is the preception of similarity which directly leads to the association of the name and hence the instruction of the forester cannot be regarded as the direct cause and consequently it cannot be classed under testimony (s'abda). See Pras'astapada and Nyayakandali, pp. 220-22, Vatsyaya@na, Udyotakara, Vacaspati and Jayanta on Upamana.]

[Footnote 2: See Kumarila's treatment of abhava in the S'lokavarttika, pp. 473-492.]

356

and his followers, whose philosophy we shall deal with in the next chapter, hold that negation (abhava) appears as an intuition (manam) with reference to the object negated where there are no means of ordinary cognition (prama@na) leading to prove the existence (satparicchedakam) of that thing. They held that the notion "it is not existent" cannot be due to perception, for there is no contact here with sense and object. It is true indeed that when we turn our eyes (e.g. in the case of the perception of the non-existence of a jug) to the ground, we see both the ground and the non-existence of a jug, and when we shut them we can see neither the jug nor the ground, and therefore it could be urged that if we called the ground visually perceptible, we could say the same with regard to the non-existence of the jug. But even then since in the case of the perception of the jug there is sense-contact, which is absent in the other case, we could never say that both are grasped by perception. We see the ground and remember the jug (which is absent) and thus in the mind rises the notion of non-existence which has no reference at all to visual perception. A man may be sitting in a place where there were no tigers, but he might not then be aware of their non-existence at the time, since he did not think of them, but when later on he is asked in the evening if there were any tigers at the place where he was sitting in the morning, he then thinks and becomes aware of the non-existence of tigers there in the morning, even without perceiving the place and without any operation of the memory of the non-existence of tigers. There is no question of there being any inference in the rise of our notion of non-existence, for it is not preceded by any notion of concomitance of any kind, and neither the ground nor the non-perception of the jug could be regarded as a reason (li@nga), for the non-perception of the jug is related to the jug and not to the negation of the jug, and no concomitance is known between the non-perception of the jug and its non-existence, and when the question of the concomitance of non-perception with non-existence is brought in, the same difficulty about the notion of non-existence (abhava) which was sought to be explained will recur again. Negation is therefore to be admitted as cognized by a separate and independent process of knowledge. Nyaya however says that the perception of non-existence (e.g. there is no jug here) is a unitary perception of one whole, just as any perception of positive existence (e.g.

357

there is a jug on the ground) is. Both the knowledge of the ground as well as the knowledge of the non-existence of the jug arise there by the same kind of action of the visual organ, and there is therefore no reason why the knowledge of the ground should be said to be due to perception, whereas the knowledge of the negation of the jug on the ground should be said to be due to a separate process of knowledge. The non-existence of the jug is taken in the same act as the ground is perceived. The principle that in order to perceive a thing one should have sense-contact with it, applies only to positive existents and not to negation or non-existence. Negation or non-existence can be cognized even without any sense-contact. Non-existence is not a positive substance, and hence there cannot be any question here of sense-contact. It may be urged that if no sense-contact is required in apprehending negation, one could as well apprehend negation or non-existence of other places which are far away from him. To this the reply is that to apprehend negation it is necessary that the place where it exists must be perceived. We know a thing and its quality to be different, and yet the quality can only be taken in association with the thing and it is so in this case as well. We can apprehend non-existence only through the apprehension of its locus. In the case when non-existence is said to be apprehended later on it is really no later apprehension of non-existence but a memory of non-existence (e.g. of jug) perceived before along with the perception of the locus of non-existence (e.g. ground). Negation or non-existence (abhava) can thus, according to Nyaya, generate its cognition just as any positive existence can do. Negation is not mere negativity or mere vacuous absence, but is what generates the cognition "is not," as position (bhava) is what generates the cognition "it is."

The Buddhists deny the existence of negation. They hold that when a negation is apprehended, it is apprehended with specific time and space conditions (e.g. this is not here now); but in spite of such an apprehension, we could never think that negation could thus be associated with them in any relation. There is also no relation between the negation and its pratiyogi (thing negated—e.g. jug in the negation of jug), for when there is the pratiyogi there is no negation, and when there is the negation there is no pratiyogi. There is not even the relation of opposition (virodha), for we could have admitted it, if

358

the negation of the jug existed before and opposed the jug, for how can the negation of the jug oppose the jug, without effecting anything at all? Again, it may be asked whether negation is to be regarded as a positive being or becoming or of the nature of not becoming or non-being. In the first alternative it will be like any other positive existents, and in the second case it will be permanent and eternal, and it cannot be related to this or that particular negation. There are however many kinds of non-perception, e.g. (1) svabhavanupalabdhi (natural non-perception—there is no jug because none is perceived); (2) kara@nanupalabdhi (non-perception of cause—there is no smoke here, since there is no fire); (3) vyapakanupalabdhi (non-perception of the species—there is no pine here, since there is no tree); (4) karyanupalabdhi (non-perception of effects—there are not the causes of smoke here, since there is no smoke); (5) svabhavaviruddhopalabdhi (perception of contradictory natures—there is no cold touch here because of fire); (6) viruddhakaryopalabdhi (perception of contradictory effects—there is no cold touch here because of smoke); (7) virudhavyaptopalabdhi (opposite concomitance—past is not of necessity destructible, since it depends on other causes); (8) karyyaviruddhopalabdhi (opposition of effects—there is not here the causes which can give cold since there is fire); (9) vyapakaviruddhopalabdhi (opposite concomitants—there is no touch of snow here, because of fire); (10) kara@naviruddhopalabdhi (opposite causes—there is no shivering through cold here, since he is near the fire); (11) kara@naviruddhakaryyopalabdhi (effects of opposite causes—this place is not occupied by men of shivering sensations for it is full of smoke [Footnote ref 1]).

There is no doubt that in the above ways we speak of negation, but that does not prove that there is any reason for the cognition of negation (heturnabhavasamvida@h). All that we can say is this that there are certain situations which justify the use (yogyata) of negative appellations. But this situation or yogyata is positive in character. What we all speak of in ordinary usage as non-perception is of the nature of perception of some sort. Perception of negation thus does not prove the existence of negation, but only shows that there are certain positive perceptions which are only interpreted in that way. It is the positive perception of the ground where the visible jug is absent that



[Footnote 1: See Nyayabindu, p. 11, and Nyayamanjari, pp. 53-7.]

359

leads us to speak of having perceived the negation of the jug (anupalambha@h abhava@m vyavaharayati) [Footnote ref 1].

The Nyaya reply against this is that the perception of positive existents is as much a fact as the perception of negation, and we have no right to say that the former alone is valid. It is said that the non-perception of jug on the ground is but the perception of the ground without the jug. But is this being without the jug identical with the ground or different? If identical then it is the same as the ground, and we shall expect to have it even when the jug is there. If different then the quarrel is only over the name, for whatever you may call it, it is admitted to be a distinct category. If some difference is noted between the ground with the jug, and the ground without it, then call it "ground, without the jugness" or "the negation of jug," it does not matter much, for a distinct category has anyhow been admitted. Negation is apprehended by perception as much as any positive existent is; the nature of the objects of perception only are different; just as even in the perception of positive sense-objects there are such diversities as colour, taste, etc. The relation of negation with space and time with which it appears associated is the relation that subsists between the qualified and the quality (vis'e@sya vis'e@sa@na). The relation between the negation and its pratiyogi is one of opposition, in the sense that where the one is the other is not. The Vais'e@sika sutra (IX. i. 6) seems to take abhava in a similar way as Kumarila the Mima@msist does, though the commentators have tried to explain it away [Footnote ref 2]. In Vais'e@sika the four kinds of negation are enumerated as (1) pragabhava (the negation preceding the production of an object—e.g. of the jug before it is made by the potter); (2) dhva@msabhava (the negation following the destruction of an object—as of the jug after it is destroyed by the stroke of a stick); (3) anyonyabhava (mutual negation—e.g. in the cow there is the negation of the horse and



[Footnote 1: See Nyayabindu@tika, pp. 34 ff., and also Nyayamanjari, pp. 48-63.]

[Footnote 2 Pras'astapada says that as the production of an effect is the sign of the existence of the cause, so the non-production of it is the sign of its non-existence, S'ridbara in commenting upon it says that the non-preception of a sensible object is the sign (_li@nga_) of its non-existence. But evidently he is not satisfied with the view for he says that non-existence is also directly perceived by the senses (_bhavavad abhavo'pindriyagraha@nayogyah_) and that there is an actual sense-contact with non-existence which is the collocating cause of the preception of non-existence (_abhavendriyasannikar@so'pi abhavagraha@nasamagri_), Nyayakandali_, pp. 225-30.]

360

in the horse that of the cow); (4) atyantabhava (a negation which always exists—e.g. even when there is a jug here, its negation in other places is not destroyed) [Footnote ref 1].

The necessity of the Acquirement of debating devices for the seeker of Salvation.

It is probable that the Nyaya philosophy arose in an atmosphere of continued disputes and debates; as a consequence of this we find here many terms related to debates which we do not notice in any other system of Indian philosophy. These are tarka, nir@naya, vada, jalpa, vita@n@da, hetvabhasa, chala, jati and nigrahasthana.

Tarka means deliberation on an unknown thing to discern its real nature; it thus consists of seeking reasons in favour of some supposition to the exclusion of other suppositions; it is not inference, but merely an oscillation of the mind to come to a right conclusion. When there is doubt (sa@ms'aya) about the specific nature of anything we have to take to tarka. Nir@naya means the conclusion to which we arrive as a result of tarka. When two opposite parties dispute over their respective theses, such as the doctrines that there is or is not an atman, in which each of them tries to prove his own thesis with reasons, each of the theses is called a vada. Jalpa means a dispute in which the disputants give wrangling rejoinders in order to defeat their respective opponents. A jalpa is called a vita@n@da when it is only a destructive criticism which seeks to refute the opponent's doctrine without seeking to establish or formulate any new doctrine. Hetvabhasas are those which appear as hetus but are really not so. Nyaya sutras enumerate five fallacies (hetvabhasas) of the middle (hetu): savyabhicara (erratic), viruddha (contradictory), prakara@nasama (tautology), saddhyasama (unproved reason) and kalatita (inopportune). Savyabhicara is that where the same reason may prove opposite conclusions (e.g. sound is eternal because it is intangible like the atoms which are eternal, and sound is non-eternal because it is intangible like cognitions which are non-eternal); viruddha is that where the reason opposes the premiss to be proved (e.g. a jug is eternal, because it is produced); prakara@nasama is that



[Footnote 1: The doctrine of negation, its function and value with reference to diverse logical problems, have many diverse aspects, and it is impossible to do them justice in a small section like this.]

361

where the reason repeats the thesis to be proved in another form (e.g. sound is non-eternal because it has not the quality of eternality); sadhyasama is that where the reason itself requires to be proved (e.g. shadow is a substance because it has motion, but it remains to be proved whether shadows have motion or not); kalatita is a false analogy where the reason fails because it does not tally with the example in point of time. Thus one may argue that sound is eternal because it is the result of contact (stick and the drum) like colour which is also a result of contact of light and the object and is eternal. Here the fallacy lies in this, that colour is simultaneous with the contact of light which shows what was already there and only manifested by the light, whereas in the case of sound it is produced immediately after the contact of the stick and drum and is hence a product and hence non-eternal. The later Nyaya works divide savyabhicara into three classes, (1) sadhara@na or common (e.g. the mountain is fiery because it is an object of knowledge, but even a lake which is opposed to fire is also an object of knowledge), (2) asadhara@na or too restricted (e.g. sound is eternal because it has the nature of sound; this cannot be a reason for the nature of sound exists only in the sound and nowhere else), and (3) anupasa@mharin or unsubsuming (e.g. everything is non-eternal, because they are all objects of knowledge; here the fallacy lies in this, that no instance can be found which is not an object of knowledge and an opposite conclusion may also be drawn). The fallacy satpratipak@sa is that in which there is a contrary reason which may prove the opposite conclusion (e.g. sound is eternal because it is audible, sound is non-eternal because it is an effect). The fallacy asiddha (unreal) is of three kinds (i) as'rayasiddha (the lotus of the sky is fragrant because it is like other lotuses; now there cannot be any lotus in the sky), (2) svarupasiddha (sound is a quality because it is visible; but sound has no visibility), (3) vyapyatvasiddha is that where the concomitance between the middle and the consequence is not invariable and inevitable; there is smoke in the hill because there is fire; but there may be fire without the smoke as in a red hot iron ball, it is only green-wood fire that is invariably associated with smoke. The fallacy badhita is that which pretends to prove a thesis which is against direct experience, e.g. fire is not hot because it is a substance. We have already enumerated the fallacies counted by Vais'e@sika. Contrary to Nyaya practice

362

Pras'astapada counts the fallacies of the example. Di@nnaga also counted fallacies of example (e.g. sound is eternal, because it is incorporeal, that which is incorporeal is eternal as the atoms; but atoms are not incorporeal) and Dharmakirtti counted also the fallacies of the pak@sa (minor); but Nyaya rightly considers that the fallacies of the middle if avoided will completely safeguard inference and that these are mere repetitions. Chala means the intentional misinterpretation of the opponent's arguments for the purpose of defeating him. Jati consists in the drawing of contradictory conclusions, the raising of false issues or the like with the deliberate intention of defeating an opponent. Nigrahasthana means the exposure of the opponent's argument as involving self-contradiction, inconsistency or the like, by which his defeat is conclusively proved before the people to the glory of the victorious opponent. As to the utility of the description of so many debating tricks by which an opponent might be defeated in a metaphysical work, the aim of which ought to be to direct the ways that lead to emancipation, it is said by Jayanta in his Nyayamanjari that these had to be resorted to as a protective measure against arrogant disputants who often tried to humiliate a teacher before his pupils. If the teacher could not silence the opponent, the faith of the pupils in him would be shaken and great disorder would follow, and it was therefore deemed necessary that he who was plodding onward for the attainment of mok@sa should acquire these devices for the protection of his own faith and that of his pupils. A knowledge of these has therefore been enjoined in the Nyaya sutra as being necessary for the attainment of salvation [Footnote ref l].

The doctrine of Soul.

Dhurtta Carvakas denied the existence of soul and regarded consciousness and life as products of bodily changes; there were other Carvakas called Sus'ik@sita Carvakas who admitted the existence of soul but thought that it was destroyed at death. The Buddhists also denied the existence of any permanent self. The naiyayikas ascertained all the categories of metaphysics mainly by such inference as was corroborated by experience. They argued that since consciousness, pleasures, pains, willing, etc. could not belong to our body or the senses, there must be

___________

[Footnote 1: See Nyayamanjari, pp. 586-659, and Tarkikarak@sa of Varadaraja and Niska@n@taka of Mallinatha, pp. 185 ff.]

363

some entity to which they belonged; the existence of the self is not proved according to Nyaya merely by the notion of our self-consciousness, as in the case of Mima@msa, for Nyaya holds that we cannot depend upon such a perception, for it may be erroneous. It often happens that I say that I am white or I am black, but it is evident that such a perception cannot be relied upon, for the self cannot have any colour. So we cannot safely depend on our self-consciousness as upon the inference that the self has to be admitted as that entity to which consciousness, emotion, etc. adhere when they are produced as a result of collocations. Never has the production of atman been experienced, nor has it been found to suffer any destruction like the body, so the soul must be eternal. It is not located in any part of the body, but is all-pervading, i.e. exists at the same time in all places (vibhu), and does not travel with the body but exists everywhere at the same time. But though atman is thus disconnected from the body, yet its actions are seen in the body because it is with the help of the collocation of bodily limbs, etc. that action in the self can be manifested or produced. It is unconscious in itself and acquires consciousness as a result of suitable collocations [Footnote ref l].

Even at birth children show signs of pleasure by their different facial features, and this could not be due to anything else than the memory of the past experiences in past lives of pleasures and pains. Moreover the inequalities in the distribution of pleasures and pains and of successes and failures prove that these must be due to the different kinds of good and bad action that men performed in their past lives. Since the inequality of the world must have some reasons behind it, it is better to admit karma as the determining factor than to leave it to irresponsible chance.

Is'vara and Salvation.

Nyaya seeks to establish the existence of Is'vara on the basis of inference. We know that the Jains, the Sa@mkhya and the Buddhists did not believe in the existence of Is'vara and offered many antitheistic arguments. Nyaya wanted to refute these and prove the existence of Is'vara by an inference of the samanyato-d@r@s@ta type.



[Footnote 1:Jnanasamavayanibandhanamevatmanas'cetayit@rtvam, &c. See Nyayamanjari, pp. 432 ff.]

364

The Jains and other atheists held that though things in the world have production and decay, the world as a whole was never produced, and it was never therefore an effect. In contrast to this view the Nyaya holds that the world as a whole is also an effect like any other effect. Many geological changes and landslips occur, and from these destructive operations proceeding in nature it may be assumed that this world is not eternal but a result of production. But even if this is not admitted by the atheists they can in no way deny the arrangement and order of the universe. But they would argue that there was certainly a difference between the order and arrangement of human productions (e.g. a jug) and the order and arrangement of the universe; and therefore from the order and arrangement(sannives'a-vis'i@s@tata) of the universe it could not be argued that the universe was produced by a creator; for, it is from the sort of order and arrangement that is found in human productions that a creator or producer could be inferred. To this, Nyaya answers that the concomitance is to be taken between the "order and arrangement" in a general sense and "the existence of a creator" and not with specific cases of "order and arrangement," for each specific case may have some such peculiarity in which it differs from similar other specific cases; thus the fire in the kitchen is not the same kind of fire as we find in a forest fire, but yet we are to disregard the specific individual peculiarities of fire in each case and consider the concomitance of fire in general with smoke in general. So here, we have to consider the concomitance of "order and arrangement" in general with "the existence of a creator," and thus though the order and arrangement of the world may be different from the order and arrangement of things produced by man, yet an inference from it for the existence of a creator would not be inadmissible. The objection that even now we see many effects (e.g. trees) which are daily shooting forth from the ground without any creator being found to produce them, does not hold, for it can never be proved that the plants are not actually created by a creator. The inference therefore stands that the world has a creator, since it is an effect and has order and arrangement in its construction. Everything that is an effect and has an order and arrangement has a creator, like the jug. The world is an effect and has order and arrangement and has therefore a creator. Just as the potter knows all the purposes of the jug that he makes,

365

so Is'vara knows all the purposes of this wide universe and is thus omniscient. He knows all things always and therefore does not require memory; all things are perceived by him directly without any intervention of any internal sense such as manas, etc. He is always happy. His will is eternal, and in accordance with the karma of men the same will produces dissolution, creates, or protects the world, in the order by which each man reaps the results of his own deeds. As our self which is in itself bodiless can by its will produce changes in our body and through it in the external world, so Is'vara also can by his will create the universe though he has no body. Some, however, say that if any association of body with Is'vara is indispensable for our conception of him, the atoms may as well be regarded as his body, so that just as by the will of our self changes and movement of our body take place, so also by his will changes and movements are produced in the atoms [Footnote ref l].

The naiyayikas in common with most other systems of Indian philosophy believed that the world was full of sorrow and that the small bits of pleasure only served to intensify the force of sorrow. To a wise person therefore everything is sorrow (sarva@m du@hkha@m vivekina@h); the wise therefore is never attached to the so-called pleasures of life which only lead us to further sorrows.

The bondage of the world is due to false knowledge (mithyajnana) which consists in thinking as my own self that which is not my self, namely body, senses, manas, feelings and knowledge; when once the true knowledge of the six padarthas and as Nyaya says, of the proofs (prama@na), the objects of knowledge (prameya), and of the other logical categories of inference is attained, false knowledge is destroyed. False knowledge can be removed by constant thinking of its opposite (pratipak@sabhavana), namely the true estimates of things. Thus when any pleasure attracts us, we are to think that this is in reality but pain, and thus the right knowledge about it will dawn and it will never attract us again. Thus it is that with the destruction of false knowledge our attachment or antipathy to things and ignorance about them (collectively called do@sa, cf. the kles'a of Patanjali) are also destroyed.

With the destruction of attachment actions (prav@rtti) for the



[Footnote:1: See Nyayamanjari, pp. 190-204, Is'varanumana of Raghunatha S'iro@ma@ni and Udayana's Kusumanjali.]

366

fulfilment of desires cease and with it rebirth ceases and with it sorrow ceases. Without false knowledge and attachment, actions cannot produce the bondage of karma that leads to the production of body and its experiences. With the cessation of sorrow there is emancipation in which the self is divested of all its qualities (consciousness, feeling, willing, etc.) and remains in its own inert state. The state of mukti according to Nyaya-Vais'e@sika is neither a state of pure knowledge nor of bliss but a state of perfect qualitilessness, in which the self remains in itself in its own purity. It is the negative state of absolute painlessness in mukti that is sometimes spoken of as being a state of absolute happiness (ananda), though really speaking the state of mukti can never be a state of happiness. It is a passive state of self in its original and natural purity unassociated with pleasure, pain, knowledge, willing, etc. [Footnote ref 1].



[Footnote 1: Nyayamanjari, pp. 499-533.]



CHAPTER IX

MIMA@MSA PHILOSOPHY [Footnote ref 1]

A Comparative Review.

The Nyaya-Vais'e@sika philosophy looked at experience from a purely common sense point of view and did not work with any such monistic tendency that the ultimate conceptions of our common sense experience should be considered as coming out of an original universal (e.g. prak@rti of the Sam@khya). Space, time, the four elements, soul, etc. convey the impression that they are substantive entities or substances. What is perceived of the material things as qualities such as colour, taste, etc. is regarded as so many entities which have distinct and separate existence but which manifest themselves in connection with the substances. So also karma or action is supposed to be a separate entity, and even the class notions are perceived as separate entities inhering in substances. Knowledge (jnana) which illuminates all things is regarded only as a quality belonging to soul, just as there are other qualities of material objects. Causation is viewed merely as the collocation of conditions. The genesis of knowledge is also viewed as similar in nature to the production of any other physical event. Thus just as by the collocation of certain physical circumstances a jug and its qualities are produced, so by the combination and respective contacts of the soul, mind, sense, and the objects of sense, knowledge (jnana) is produced. Soul with Nyaya is an inert unconscious entity in which knowledge, etc. inhere. The relation between a substance and its quality, action, class notion, etc. has also to be admitted as a separate entity, as without it the different entities being without any principle of relation would naturally fail to give us a philosophic construction.

Sa@mkhya had conceived of a principle which consisted of an infinite number of reals of three different types, which by their combination were conceived to be able to produce all substances, qualities, actions, etc. No difference was acknowledged to exist between substances, qualities and actions, and it was conceived



[Footnote 1: On the meanirg of the word Mima@msa see Chapter IV.]

368

that these were but so many aspects of a combination of the three types of reals in different proportions. The reals contained within them the rudiments of all developments of matter, knowledge, willing, feelings, etc. As combinations of reals changed incessantly and new phenomena of matter and mind were manifested, collocations did not bring about any new thing but brought about a phenomenon which was already there in its causes in another form. What we call knowledge or thought ordinarily, is with them merely a form of subtle illuminating matter stuff. Sa@mkhya holds however that there is a transcendent entity as pure consciousness and that by some kind of transcendent reflection or contact this pure consciousness transforms the bare translucent thought-matter into conscious thought or experience of a person.

But this hypothesis of a pure self, as essentially distinct and separate from knowledge as ordinarily understood, can hardly be demonstrated in our common sense experience; and this has been pointed out by the Nyaya school in a very strong and emphatic manner. Even Sa@mkhya did not try to prove that the existence of its transcendent puru@sa could be demonstrated in experience, and it had to attempt to support its hypothesis of the existence of a transcendent self on the ground of the need of a permanent entity as a fixed object, to which the passing states of knowledge could cling, and on grounds of moral struggle towards virtue and emancipation. Sa@mkhya had first supposed knowledge to be merely a combination of changing reals, and then had as a matter of necessity to admit a fixed principle as puru@sa (pure transcendent consciousness). The self is thus here in some sense an object of inference to fill up the gap left by the inadequate analysis of consciousness (buddhi) as being non-intelligent and incessantly changing.

Nyaya fared no better, for it also had to demonstrate self on the ground that since knowledge existed it was a quality, and therefore must inhere in some substance. This hypothesis is again based upon another uncritical assumption that substances and attributes were entirely separate, and that it was the nature of the latter to inhere in the former, and also that knowledge was a quality requiring (similarly with other attributes) a substance in which to inhere. None of them could take their stand upon the self-conscious nature of our ordinary thought and draw their conclusions on the strength of the direct evidence of this self-conscious

369

thought. Of course it is true that Sa@mkhya had approached nearer to this view than Nyaya, but it had separated the content of knowledge and its essence so irrevocably that it threatened to break the integrity of thought in a manner quite unwarranted by common sense experience, which does not seem to reveal this dual element in thought. Anyhow the unification of the content of thought and its essence had to be made, and this could not be done except by what may be regarded as a makeshift—a transcendent illusion running on from beginningless time. These difficulties occurred because Sa@mkhya soared to a region which was not directly illuminated by the light of common sense experience. The Nyaya position is of course much worse as a metaphysical solution, for it did not indeed try to solve anything, but only gave us a schedule of inferential results which could not be tested by experience, and which were based ultimately on a one-sided and uncritical assumption. It is an uncritical common sense experience that substances are different from qualities and actions, and that the latter inhere in the former. To base the whole of metaphysics on such a tender and fragile experience is, to say the least, building on a weak foundation. It was necessary that the importance of the self-revealing thought must be brought to the forefront, its evidence should be collected and trusted, and an account of experience should be given according to its verdict. No construction of metaphysics can ever satisfy us which ignores the direct immediate convictions of self-conscious thought. It is a relief to find that a movement of philosophy in this direction is ushered in by the Mima@msa system. The Mima@msa sutras were written by Jaimini and the commentary (bha@sya) on it was written by S'abara. But the systematic elaboration of it was made by Kumarila, who preceded the great S'a@nkaracarya, and a disciple of Kumarila, Prabhakara.

The Mima@msa Literature.

It is difficult to say how the sacrificial system of worship grew in India in the Brahma@nas. This system once set up gradually began to develop into a net-work of elaborate rituals, the details of which were probably taken note of by the priests. As some generations passed and the sacrifices spread over larger tracts of India and grew up into more and more elaborate details, the old rules and regulations began to be collected probably as tradition

370

had it, and this it seems gave rise to the sm@rti literature. Discussions and doubts became more common about the many intricacies of the sacrificial rituals, and regular rational enquiries into them were begun in different circles by different scholars and priests. These represent the beginnings of Mima@msa (lit. attempts at rational enquiry), and it is probable that there were different schools of this thought. That Jaimini's Mima@msa sutras (which are with us the foundations of Mima@msa) are only a comprehensive and systematic compilation of one school is evident from the references he gives to the views in different matters of other preceding writers who dealt with the subject. These works are not available now, and we cannot say how much of what Jaimini has written is his original work and how much of it borrowed. But it may be said with some degree of confidence that it was deemed so masterly a work at least of one school that it has survived all other attempts that were made before him. Jaimini's Mima@msa sutras were probably written about 200 B.C. and are now the ground work of the Mima@msa system. Commentaries were written on it by various persons such as Bhart@rmitra (alluded to in Nyayaratnakara verse 10 of S'lokavarttika), Bhavadasa {Pratijnasutra 63}, Hari and Upavar@sa (mentioned in S'astradipika). It is probable that at least some of these preceded S'abara, the writer of the famous commentary known as the S'abara-bha@sya. It is difficult to say anything about the time in which he flourished. Dr Ga@nganatha Jha would have him about 57 B.C. on the evidence of a current verse which speaks of King Vikramaditya as being the son of S'abarasvamin by a K@sattriya wife. This bha@sya of S'abara is the basis of the later Mima@msa works. It was commented upon by an unknown person alluded to as Varttikakara by Prabhakara and merely referred to as "yathahu@h" (as they say) by Kumarila. Dr Ga@nganatha Jha says that Prabhakara's commentary B@rhati on the S'abara-bha@sya was based upon the work of this Varttikakara. This B@rhati of Prabhakara had another commentary on it—@Rjuvimala by S'alikanatha Mis'ra, who also wrote a compendium on the Prabhakara interpretation of Mima@msa called Prakara@napancika. Tradition says that Prabhakara (often referred to as Nibandhakara), whose views are often alluded to as "gurumata," was a pupil of Kumarila. Kumarila Bha@t@ta, who is traditionally believed to be the senior contemporary of S'a@nkara (788 A.D.), wrote his celebrated independent

371

exposition of S'abara's bha@sya in three parts known as S'lokavarttika (dealing only with the philosophical portion of S'abara's work as contained in the first chapter of the first book known as Tarkapada), Tantravarttika (dealing with the remaining three chapters of the first book, the second and the third book) and @Tup@tika (containing brief notes on the remaining nine books) [Footnote ref 1]. Kumarila is referred to by his later followers as Bha@t@ta, Bha@t@tapada, and Varttikakara. The next great Mima@msa scholar and follower of Kumarila was Ma@n@dana Mis'ra, the author of Vidhiviveka, Mima@msanukrama@ni and the commentator of Tantravarttika, who became later on converted by S'a@nkara to Vedantism. Parthasarathi Mis'ra (about ninth century A.D.) wrote his S'astradipika, Tantraratna, and Nyayaratnamala following the footprints of Kumarila. Amongst the numerous other followers of Kumarila, the names of Sucarita Mis'ra the author of Kas'ika and Somes'vara the author of Nyayasudha deserve special notice. Ramak@r@s@na Bha@t@ta wrote an excellent commentary on the Tarkapada of S'astradipika called the Yuktisnehapura@ni-siddhanta-candrika and Somanatha wrote his Mayukhamalika on the remaining chapters of S'astradipika. Other important current Mima@msa works which deserve notice are such as Nyayamalavistara of Madhava, Subodhini, Mima@msabalaprakas'a of S'a@nkara Bha@t@ta, Nyayaka@nika of Vacaspati Mis'ra, Mima@msaparibha@sa by K@r@s@nayajvan, Mima@msanyayaprakas'a by Anantadeva, Gaga Bha@t@ta's Bha@t@tacintama@ni, etc. Most of the books mentioned here have been consulted in the writing of this chapter. The importance of the Mima@msa literature for a Hindu is indeed great. For not only are all Vedic duties to be performed according to its maxims, but even the sm@rti literatures which regulate the daily duties, ceremonials and rituals of Hindus even at the present day are all guided and explained by them. The legal side of the sm@rtis consisting of inheritance, proprietory rights, adoption, etc. which guide Hindu civil life even under the British administration is explained according to the Mima@msa maxims. Its relations to the Vedanta philosophy will be briefly indicated in the next chapter. Its relations with Nyaya-Vais'e@sika have also been pointed out in various places of this chapter. The views of the two schools of Mima@msa as propounded by Prabhakara and Kumarila on all the important topics have



[Footnote 1: Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasada S'astri says, in his introduction to Six Buddhist Nyaya Tracts, that "Kumarila preceded Sa@nkara by two generations."]

372

also been pointed out. Prabhakara's views however could not win many followers in later times, but while living it is said that he was regarded by Kumarila as a very strong rival [Footnote ref 1]. Hardly any new contribution has been made to the Mima@msa philosophy after Kumarila and Prabhakara. The Mima@msa sutras deal mostly with the principles of the interpretation of the Vedic texts in connection with sacrifices, and very little of philosophy can be gleaned out of them. S'abara's contributions are also slight and vague. Varttikakara's views also can only be gathered from the references to them by Kumarila and Prabhakara. What we know of Mima@msa philosophy consists of their views and theirs alone. It did not develop any further after them. Works written on the subject in later times were but of a purely expository nature. I do not know of any work on Mima@msa written in English except the excellent one by Dr Ga@nganatha Jha on the Prabhakara Mima@msa to which I have frequently referred.

The Parata@h-prama@nya doctrine of Nyaya and the Svata@h-prama@nya doctrine of Mima@msa.

The doctrine of the self-validity of knowledge (svata@h-prama@nya) forms the cornerstone on which the whole structure of the Mima@msa philosophy is based. Validity means the certitude of truth. The Mima@msa philosophy asserts that all knowledge excepting the action of remembering (sm@rti) or memory is valid in itself, for it itself certifies its own truth, and neither depends on any other extraneous condition nor on any other knowledge for its validity. But Nyaya holds that this self-validity of knowledge is a question which requires an explanation. It is true that under certain conditions a piece of knowledge is produced in us, but what is meant by saying that this knowledge is a proof of its own truth? When we perceive anything as blue, it is the direct result of visual contact, and this visual contact cannot certify that the knowledge generated is true, as the visual contact is not in any touch with the knowledge



[Footnote 1: There is a story that Kumarila, not being able to convert Prabhakara, his own pupil, to his views, attempted a trick and pretended that he was dead. His disciples then asked Prabhakara whether his burial rites should be performed according to Kumarila's views or Prabhakara's. Prabhakara said that his own views were erroneous, but these were held by him only to rouse up Kumarila's pointed attacks, whereas Kumarila's views were the right ones. Kumarila then rose up and said that Prabhakara was defeated, but the latter said he was not defeated so long as he was alive. But this has of course no historic value.]

373

it has conditioned. Moreover, knowledge is a mental affair and how can it certify the objective truth of its representation? In other words, how can my perception "a blue thing" guarantee that what is subjectively perceived as blue is really so objectively as well? After my perception of anything as blue we do not have any such perception that what I have perceived as blue is really so. So this so-called self-validity of knowledge cannot be testified or justified by any perception. We can only be certain that knowledge has been produced by the perceptual act, but there is nothing in this knowledge or its revelation of its object from which we can infer that the perception is also objectively valid or true. If the production of any knowledge should certify its validity then there would be no invalidity, no illusory knowledge, and following our perception of even a mirage we should never come to grief. But we are disappointed often in our perceptions, and this proves that when we practically follow the directions of our perception we are undecided as to its validity, which can only be ascertained by the correspondence of the perception with what we find later on in practical experience. Again, every piece of knowledge is the result of certain causal collocations, and as such depends upon them for its production, and hence cannot be said to rise without depending on anything else. It is meaningless to speak of the validity of knowledge, for validity always refers to objective realization of our desires and attempts proceeding in accordance with our knowledge. People only declare their knowledge invalid when proceeding practically in accordance with it they are disappointed. The perception of a mirage is called invalid when proceeding in accordance with our perception we do not find anything that can serve the purposes of water (e.g. drinking, bathing). The validity or truth of knowledge is thus the attainment by practical experience of the object and the fulfilment of all our purposes from it (arthakriyajnana or phalajnana) just as perception or knowledge represented them to the perceiver. There is thus no self-validity of knowledge (svata@h-prama@nya), but validity is ascertained by sa@mvada or agreement with the objective facts of experience [Footnote ref l].

It is easy to see that this Nyaya objection is based on the supposition that knowledge is generated by certain objective collocations of conditions, and that knowledge so produced can



[Footnote 1: See Nyayamanjari, pp. 160-173.]

374

only be tested by its agreement with objective facts. But this theory of knowledge is merely an hypothesis; for it can never be experienced that knowledge is the product of any collocations; we have a perception and immediately we become aware of certain objective things; knowledge reveals to us the facts of the objective world and this is experienced by us always. But that the objective world generates knowledge in us is only an hypothesis which can hardly be demonstrated by experience. It is the supreme prerogative of knowledge that it reveals all other things. It is not a phenomenon like any other phenomenon of the world. When we say that knowledge has been produced in us by the external collocations, we just take a perverse point of view which is unwarranted by experience; knowledge only photographs the objective phenomena for us; but there is nothing to show that knowledge has been generated by these phenomena. This is only a theory which applies the ordinary conceptions of causation to knowledge and this is evidently unwarrantable. Knowledge is not like any other phenomena for it stands above them and interprets or illumines them all. There can be no validity in things, for truth applies to knowledge and knowledge alone. What we call agreement with facts by practical experience is but the agreement of previous knowledge with later knowledge; for objective facts never come to us directly, they are always taken on the evidence of knowledge, and they have no other certainty than what is bestowed on them by knowledge. There arise indeed different kinds of knowledge revealing different things, but these latter do not on that account generate the former, for this is never experienced; we are never aware of any objective fact before it is revealed by knowledge. Why knowledge makes different kinds of revelations is indeed more than we can say, for experience only shows that knowledge reveals objective facts and not why it does so. The rise of knowledge is never perceived by us to be dependent on any objective fact, for all objective facts are dependent on it for its revelation or illumination. This is what is said to be the self-validity (svata@h-prama@ya) of knowledge in its production (utpatti). As soon as knowledge is produced, objects are revealed to us; there is no intermediate link between the rise of knowledge and the revelation of objects on which knowledge depends for producing its action of revealing or illuminating them. Thus knowledge is not only independent

375

of anything else in its own rise but in its own action as well (_svakaryakara@ne svata@h prama@nya@m jnanasya_). Whenever there is any knowledge it carries with it the impression that it is certain and valid, and we are naturally thus prompted to work (_prav@rtti_} according to its direction. There is no indecision in our mind at the time of the rise of knowledge as to the correctness of knowledge; but just as knowledge rises, it carries with it the certainty of its revelation, presence, or action. But in cases of illusory perception other perceptions or cognitions dawn which carry with them the notion that our original knowledge was not valid. Thus though the invalidity of any knowledge may appear to us by later experience, and in accordance with which we reject our former knowledge, yet when the knowledge first revealed itself to us it carried with it the conviction of certainty which goaded us on to work according to its indication. Whenever a man works according to his knowledge, he does so with the conviction that his knowledge is valid, and not in a passive or uncertain temper of mind. This is what Mima@msa means when it says that the validity of knowledge appears immediately with its rise, though its invalidity may be derived from later experience or some other data (_jnanasya pra@ma@nyam svata@h aprama@nya@m parata@h_). Knowledge attained is proved invalid when later on a contradictory experience (_badhakajnana_) comes in or when our organs etc. are known to be faulty and defective (_kara@nado@sajnana). It is from these that knowledge appearing as valid is invalidated; when we take all necessary care to look for these and yet find them not, we must think that they do not exist. Thus the validity of knowledge certified at the moment of its production need not be doubted unnecessarily when even after enquiry we do not find any defect in sense or any contradiction in later experience. All knowledge except memory is thus regarded as valid independently by itself as a general rule, unless it is invalidated later on. Memory is excluded because the phenomenon of memory depends upon a previous experience, and its existing latent impressions, and cannot thus be regarded as arising independently by itself.

The place of sense organs in perception.

We have just said that knowledge arises by itself and that it could not have been generated by sense-contact. If this be so, the diversity of perceptions is however left unexplained. But in

376

face of the Nyaya philosophy explaining all perceptions on the ground of diverse sense-contact the Mima@msa probably could not afford to remain silent on such an important point. It therefore accepted the Nyaya view of sense-contact as a condition of knowledge with slight modifications, and yet held their doctrine of svata@h-prama@nya. It does not appear to have been conscious of a conflict between these two different principles of the production of knowledge. Evidently the point of view from which it looked at it was that the fact that there were the senses and contacts of them with the objects, or such special capacities in them by virtue of which the things could be perceived, was with us a matter of inference. Their actions in producing the knowledge are never experienced at the time of the rise of knowledge, but when the knowledge arises we argue that such and such senses must have acted. The only case where knowledge is found to be dependent on anything else seems to be the case where one knowledge is found to depend on a previous experience or knowledge as in the case of memory. In other cases the dependence of the rise of knowledge on anything else cannot be felt, for the physical collocations conditioning knowledge are not felt to be operating before the rise of knowledge, and these are only inferred later on in accordance with the nature and characteristic of knowledge. We always have our first start in knowledge which is directly experienced from which we may proceed later on to the operation and nature of objective facts in relation to it. Thus it is that though contact of the senses with the objects may later on be imagined to be the conditioning factor, yet the rise of knowledge as well as our notion of its validity strikes us as original, underived, immediate, and first-hand.

Prabhakara gives us a sketch as to how the existence of the senses may be inferred. Thus our cognitions of objects are phenomena which are not all the same, and do not happen always in the same manner, for these vary differently at different moments; the cognitions of course take place in the soul which may thus be regarded as the material cause (samavayikara@na); but there must be some such movements or other specific associations (asamavayikara@na) which render the production of this or that specific cognition possible. The immaterial causes subsist either in the cause of the material cause (e.g. in the case of the colouring of a white piece of cloth, the colour of the yarns which

377

is the cause of the colour in the cloth subsists in the yarns which form the material cause of the cloth) or in the material cause itself (e.g. in the case of a new form of smell being produced in a substance by fire-contact, this contact, which is the immaterial cause of the smell, subsists in that substance itself which is put in the fire and in which the smell is produced). The soul is eternal and has no other cause, and it has to be assumed that the immaterial cause required for the rise of a cognition must inhere in the soul, and hence must be a quality. Then again accepting the Nyaya conclusions we know that the rise of qualities in an eternal thing can only take place by contact with some other substances. Now cognition being a quality which the soul acquires would naturally require the contact of such substances. Since there is nothing to show that such substances inhere in other substances they are also to be taken as eternal. There are three eternal substances, time, space, and atoms. But time and space being all-pervasive the soul is always in contact with them. Contact with these therefore cannot explain the occasional rise of different cognitions. This contact must then be of some kind of atom which resides in the body ensouled by the cognizing soul. This atom may be called manas (mind). This manas alone by itself brings about cognitions, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, etc. The manas however by itself is found to be devoid of any such qualities as colour, smell, etc., and as such cannot lead the soul to experience or cognize these qualities; hence it stands in need of such other organs as may be characterized by these qualities; for the cognition of colour, the mind will need the aid of an organ of which colour is the characteristic quality; for the cognition of smell, an organ having the odorous characteristic and so on with touch, taste, vision. Now we know that the organ which has colour for its distinctive feature must be one composed of tejas or light, as colour is a feature of light, and this proves the existence of the organ, the eye—for the cognition of colour; in a similar manner the existence of the earthly organ (organ of smell), the aqueous organ (organ of taste), the akas'ic organ (organ of sound) and the airy organ (organ of touch) may be demonstrated. But without manas none of these organs is found to be effective. Four necessary contacts have to be admitted, (1) of the sense organs with the object, (2) of the sense organs with the qualities of the object, (3) of the manas

378

with the sense organs, and (4) of the manas with the soul. The objects of perception are of three kinds,(1) substances, (2) qualities, (3) jati or class. The material substances are tangible objects of earth, fire, water, air in large dimensions (for in their fine atomic states they cannot be perceived). The qualities are colour, taste, smell, touch, number, dimension, separateness, conjunction, disjunction, priority, posteriority, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, and effort [Footnote ref l].

It may not be out of place here to mention in conclusion that Kumarila Bha@t@ta was rather undecided as to the nature of the senses or of their contact with the objects. Thus he says that the senses may be conceived either as certain functions or activities, or as entities having the capacity of revealing things without coming into actual contact with them, or that they might be entities which actually come in contact with their objects [Footnote ref 2], and he prefers this last view as being more satisfactory.

Indeterminate and determinate perception.

There are two kinds of perception in two stages, the first stage is called nirvikalpa (indeterminate) and the second savikalpa (determinate). The nirvikalpa perception of a thing is its perception at the first moment of the association of the senses and their objects. Thus Kumarila says that the cognition that appears first is a mere alocana or simple perception, called non-determinate pertaining to the object itself pure and simple, and resembling the cognitions that the new-born infant has of things around himself. In this cognition neither the genus nor the differentia is presented to consciousness; all that is present there is the individual wherein these two subsist. This view of indeterminate perception may seem in some sense to resemble the Buddhist view which defines it as being merely the specific individuality (svalak@sa@na} and regards it as being the only valid element in perception, whereas all the rest are conceived as being imaginary



[Footnote 1: See Prakara@napancika, pp. 53 etc., and Dr Ga@nganatha Jha's Prabhakaramima@msa, pp. 35 etc.]

[Footnote 2: S'lokavarttika, see Pratyak@sasutra, 40 etc., and Nyayaratnakara on it. It may be noted in this connection that Sa@mkhya-Yoga did not think like Nyaya that the senses actually went out to meet the objects (prapyakaritva) but held that there was a special kind of functioning (v@rtti) by virtue of which the senses could grasp even such distant objects as the sun and the stars. It is the functioning of the sense that reached the objects. The nature of the v@rtti is not further clearly explained and Parthasarathi objects to it as being almost a different category (tattvantara).]

379

impositions. But both Kumarila and Prabhakara think that both the genus and the differentia are perceived in the indeterminate stage, but these do not manifest themselves to us only because we do not remember the other things in relation to which, or in contrast to which, the percept has to show its character as genus or differentia; a thing can be cognized as an "individual" only in comparison with other things from which it differs in certain well-defined characters; and it can be apprehended as belonging to a class only when it is found to possess certain characteristic features in common with some other things; so we see that as other things are not presented to consciousness through memory, the percept at the indeterminate stage cannot be fully apprehended as an individual belonging to a class, though the data constituting the characteristic of the thing as a genus and its differentia are perceived at the indeterminate stage [Footnote ref 1]. So long as other things are not remembered these data cannot manifest themselves properly, and hence the perception of the thing remains indeterminate at the first stage of perception. At the second stage the self by its past impressions brings the present perception in relation to past ones and realizes its character as involving universal and particular. It is thus apparent that the difference between the indeterminate and the determinate perception is this, that in the latter case memory of other things creeps in, but this association of memory in the determinate perception refers to those other objects of memory and not to the percept. It is also held that though the determinate perception is based upon the indeterminate one, yet since the former also apprehends certain such factors as did not enter into the indeterminate perception, it is to be regarded as a valid cognition. Kumarila also agrees with Prabhakara in holding both the indeterminate and the determinate perception valid [Footnote ref 2].

Some Ontological Problems connected with the Doctrine of Perception.

The perception of the class (jati) of a percept in relation to other things may thus be regarded in the main as a difference between determinate and indeterminate perceptions. The problems of jati and avayavavayavi (part and whole notion) were



[Footnote 1: Compare this with the Vais'e@sika view as interpreted by S'ridhara.]

[Footnote 2: See Prakara@napancika and S'astradipika.]

380

the subjects of hot dispute in Indian philosophy. Before entering into discussion about jati, Prabhakara first introduced the problem of avayava (part) and avayavi (whole). He argues as an exponent of svata@h-prama@nyavada that the proof of the true existence of anything must ultimately rest on our own consciousness, and what is distinctly recognized in consciousness must be admitted to have its existence established. Following this canon Prabhakara says that gross objects as a whole exist, since they are so perceived. The subtle atoms are the material cause and their connection (sa@myoga) is the immaterial cause (asamavayikara@na), and it is the latter which renders the whole altogether different from the parts of which it is composed; and it is not necessary that all the parts should be perceived before the whole is perceived. Kumarila holds that it is due to the point of view from which we look at a thing that we call it a separate whole or only a conglomeration of parts. In reality they are identical, but when we lay stress on the notion of parts, the thing appears to be a conglomeration of them, and when we look at it from the point of view of the unity appearing as a whole, the thing appears to be a whole of which there are parts (see S'lokavarttika, Vanavada) [Footnote ref 1].

Jati, though incorporating the idea of having many units within one, is different from the conception of whole in this, that it resides in its entirety in each individual constituting that jati (vyas'ajyav@rtti),



[Footnote 1: According to Sa@mkhya-Yoga a thing is regarded as the unity of the universal and the particular (samanyavis'esasamudayo dravyam, Vyasabhasya, III. 44), for there is no other separate entity which is different from them both in which they would inhere as Nyaya holds. Conglomerations can be of two kinds, namely those in which the parts exist at a distance from one another (e.g. a forest), and those in which they exist close together (mrantara hi tadavayavah), and it is this latter combination (ayutasiddhavayava) which is called a dravya, but here also there is no separate whole distinct from the parts; it is the parts connected in a particular way and having no perceptible space between them that is called a thing or a whole. The Buddhists as Panditas'oka has shown did not believe in any whole (avayavi), it is the atoms which in connection with one another appeared as a whole occupying space (paramanava eva hi pararupades'apariharenotpannah parasparasahita avabhasamana desavitanavanto bhavanti). The whole is thus a mere appearance and not a reality (see Avayavinirakarana, Six Buddhist Nyaya Tracts). Nyaya however held that the atoms were partless (niravayava} and hence it would be wrong to say that when we see an object we see the atoms. The existence of a whole as different from the parts which belong to it is directly experienced and there is no valid reason against it: