Through vis’e@sa things are perceived as diverse. No single sensation that we receive from the external world probably agrees with any other sensation, and this difference must be due to the

650

existence of some specific differences amongst the atoms themselves.

The, specific difference existing in the atoms, emancipated souls and minds must be regarded as eternally existing, and it

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The Buddhist Panditâs’oka says that there is no single thing running through different individuals (e.g. cooks) by virtue of which the sâmânya could be established, for if it did exist then we could have known it simply by seeing any cook without any reference to his action of cooking by virtue of which the notion of generality is formed. If there is a similarity between the action of cooks that cannot establish jâti in the cooks, for the similarity applies to other things, viz. the action of the cooks. If the specific individualities of a cow should require one common factor to hold them together, then these should require another and that another, and we have a regressus ad infinitum.

Whatever being perceptible is not perceived is nonexistent (_yadyadupalabdhilaksanapraptam sannopalabhyate tattadasat_). Sâmânya is

such, therefore sâmânya is non existent. No sâmânya can be admitted to exist as an entity. But it is only as a result of the impressions of past experiences of existence and non existence that this notion is formed and transferred erroneously to external objects. Apart from this no sâmânya can be pointed out as being externally perceptible —_Sâmânyadûsanadikprasaritâ_—in Six Buddhist Nyâya Tracts. The Vedanta

651

also does not think that either by perception or by inference we can know jâti as a separate substance. So it discards jâti. See Vedântaparibhâsâ, Sikhamani and Mamprabhâ, pp. 69-71. See also Sriharsa’s Khan@danakhandakhadya, pp 1079-1086.]

[Footnote 2: Similarity (sâdrs’ya) is not regarded as a separate category, for it is defined as identity in difference (_tadbhinnatve sati tadgatabhûyodharmavattvam_).]

319

is on account of its presence that atoms appear as different to the yogins who can perceive them.

Samavâya, the inseparable relation of inherence, is a relation by virtue of which two different things such as substance and attribute, substance and karma, substance and sâmânya, karana (cause) and kârya (effect), atoms and vis’e@sa, appear so unified that they represent one whole, or one identical inseparable reality.

This peculiar relation of inseparable inherence is the cause why substance, action, and attribute, cause and effect, and jâti in substance and attribute appear as indissolubly connected as if they are one and the same thing Samyoga or contact may take place between two things of the same nature which exist as disconnected and may later on be connected (_yutasiddha_), such as when I put

652

my pen on the table. The pen and the table are both substances and were disconnected, the samynga relation is the gu@na by virtue of which they appear to be connected for a while. Samavâya however makes absolutely difficient things such as dravya and gu@na and karma or karana and karya (clay and jug) appear as one inseparable whole (_ayutasiddha_). This relation is thus a separate and independent category. This is not regarded as many like sa@myogas (contact) but as one and eternal because it has no cause. This or that object (eg. jug) may be destroyed but the samavâya relation which was never brought into being by anybody always remains [Footnote ref 1].

These six things are called the six padârthas or independent realities experienced in perception and expressed in language.

The Theory of Causation.

The Nyâya-Vais’e@sika in most of its speculations took that view of things which finds expression in our language, and which we tacitly assume as true in all our ordinary experience. Thus

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The Vedânta does not admit the existence of the relation of samavâya as subsisting between two different entities (e.g. substance

653

and qualities). Thus S’a@nkara says (_Brahma-sûtrabhâ@sya II. ii. 13_) that if a samavâya relation is to be admitted to connect two different things, then another samavâya would be necessary to connect it with either of the two entities that it intended to connect, and that another, and so there will be a vicious infinite (_anavasthâ_).

Nyâya, however, would not regard it as vicious at all. It is well to remember that the Indian systems acknowledge two kinds of anavasthâ—_prâmâ@nikî_ (valid infinite, as in case of the question of the seed and the tree, or of the avidyâ and the passions), and another aprâmâ@nikî anavasthâ (vicious infinite) as when the admission of anything invokes an infinite chain before it can be completed.]

320

they admitted dravya, gu@na, karma and sâmânya, Vis’e@sa they had to admit as the ultimate peculiarities of atoms, for they did not admit that things were continually changing their qualities, and that everything could be produced out of everything by a change of the collocation or arrangement of the constituting atoms.

In the production of the effect too they did not admit that the effect was potentially pre-existent in the cause. They held that the material cause (e.g. clay) had some power within it, and the accessory and other instrumental causes (such as the stick, the wheel etc.) had other powers; the collocation of these two destroyed the cause, and produced the effect which was not existent

654

before but was newly produced. This is what is called the doctrine of asatkâryavâda. This is just the opposite of the Sâ@mkhya axiom, that what is existent cannot be destroyed nâbhâvo vidyate sata@h) and that the nonexistent could never be produced (_nâsato vidyate bhâvah_). The objection to this view is that if what is nonexistent is produced, then even such impossible things as the hare’s horn could also be produced. The Nyâya-Vais’e@sika answer is that the view is not that anything that is nonexistent can be produced, but that which is produced was nonexistent [Footnote ref 1].

It is held by Mîmâ@msâ that an unseen power resides in the cause which produces the effect. To this Nyâya objects that this is neither a matter of observation nor of legitimate hypothesis, for there is no reason to suppose that there is any transcendental operation in causal movement as this can be satisfactorily explained by molecular movement (_parispanda_). There is nothing except the invariable time relation (antecedence and sequence) between the cause and the effect, but the mere invariableness of an antecedent does not suffice to make it the cause of what succeeds; it must be an unconditional antecedent as well (_anyathâsiddhis’ûnyasya niyatâpûrvavarttitâ_). Unconditionality and invariability are indispensable for kâryakâra@na-bhâva or cause and effect relation. For example, the non-essential or adventitious accompaniments of an invariable antecedent may also

655

be invariable antecedents; but they are not unconditional, only collateral or indirect. In other words their antecedence is conditional upon something else (_na svâtantrye@na_). The potter’s stick is an unconditional invariable antecedent of the jar; but the colour

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Nyâyamuñjari, p. 494.]

321

of a stick or its texture or size, or any other accompaniment or accident which does not contribute to the work done, is not an unconditional antecedent, and must not therefore be regarded as a cause. Similarly the co-effects of the invariable antecedents or what enters into the production of their co-effects may themselves be invariable antecedents; but they are not unconditional, being themselves conditioned by those of the antecedents of which they are effects. For example, the sound produced by the stick or by the potter’s wheel invariably precedes the jar but it is a co-effect; and âkâs’a (ether) as the substrate and vâyu (air) as the vehicle of the sound enter into the production of this co-effect, but these are no unconditional antecedents, and must therefore be rejected in an enumeration of conditions or causes of the jar. The conditions of the

656

conditions should also be rejected; the invariable antecedent of the potter (who is an invariable antecedent of the jar), the potter’s father, does not stand in a causal relation to the potter’s handiwork. In fact the antecedence must not only be unconditionally invariable, but must also be immediate. Finally all seemingly invariable antecedents which may be dispensed with or left out are not unconditional and cannot therefore be regarded as causal conditions. Thus Dr. Seal in describing it rightly remarks, “In the end, the discrimination of what is necessary to complete the sum of causes from what is dependent, collateral, secondary, superfluous, or inert (i.e. of the relevant from the irrelevant factors), must depend on the test of expenditure of energy. This test the Nyâya would accept only in the sense of an operation analysable into molar or molecular motion (_parispanda eva bhautiko vyâpâra@h karotyartha@h atîndriyastu vyâparo nâsti._ Jayanta’s Mañjari Âhnika I), but would emphatically reject, if it is advanced in support of the notion of a mysterious causal power or efficiency (_s’akti_) [Footnote ref 1].” With Nyâya all energy is necessarily kinetic. This is a peculiarity of Nyâya—its insisting that the effect is only the sum or resultant of the operations of the different causal conditions—that these operations are of the nature of motion or kinetic, in other words it firmly holds to the view that causation is a case of expenditure of energy, i.e. a redistribution of motion, but at the same time absolutely repudiates the Sâ@mkhya conception of power or productive

657

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Dr P.C. Ray’s Hindu Chemistry, 1909, pp. 249-250.]

322

efficiency as metaphysical or transcendental (_atîndriya_) and finds nothing in the cause other than unconditional invariable complements of operative conditions (_kâra@na-sâmagrî_), and nothing in the effect other than the consequent phenomenon which results from the joint operations of the antecedent conditions [Footnote ref 1].

Certain general conditions such as relative space (_dik_), time (_kâla_), the will of Îs’vara, destiny (_ad@r@s@ta_) are regarded as the common cause of all effects (_kâryatva-prayojaka_). Those are called sâdhâra@na-kâra@na (common cause) as distinguished from the specific causes which determine the specific effects which are called sâdhâra@na kâra@na. It may not be out of place here to notice that Nyâya while repudiating transcendental power (_s’akti_) in the mechanism of nature and natural causation, does not deny the existence of metaphysical conditions like merit (_dharma_), which constitutes a system of moral ends that fulfil themselves through the mechanical systems and order of nature.

The causal relation then like the relation of genus to species,

658

is a natural relation of concomitance, which can be ascertained only by the uniform and uninterrupted experience of agreement in presence and agreement in absence, and not by a deduction from a certain a priori principle like that of causality or identity of essence [Footnote ref 2].

The material cause such as the clay is technically called the samavâyi-kâra@na of the jug. Samavâya means as we have seen an intimate, inseparable relation of inherence. A kâra@na is called samavâyi when its materials are found inseparably connected with the materials of the effect. Asamavâyi-kâra@na is that which produces its characteristics in the effect through the medium of the samavâyi or material cause, e.g. the clay is not the cause of the colour of the jug but the colour of the clay is the cause of the colour of the jug. The colour of the clay which exists in the clay in inseparable relation is the cause of the colour of the jug. This colour of the clay is thus called the asamavâyi cause of the jug.

Any quality (_gu@na_) or movement which existing in the samavâya cause in the samavâya relation determines the characteristics of the effect is called the asamavâyi-kâra@na. The instrumental

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Dr P.C. Ray’s Hindu Chemistry, 1909, pp. 249-250.]

659

[Footnote 2: See for this portion Dr B.N. Seal’s Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus, pp. 263-266. Sarvadars’anasa@mgraha on Buddhism.

Nyâyamañjarî Bhâ@sâ-pariccheda, with Muktâvalî and Dinakarî, and Tarkas@mgraha. The doctrine of Anyathâsiddhi was systematically developed from the time of Ga@nges’a.]

323

nimitta and accessory (_sahakâri_) causes are those which help the material cause to produce the effect. Thus the potter, the wheel and the stick may be regarded as the nimitta and the sahakãri causes of the effect.

We know that the Nyâya-Vais’e@sika regards the effect as nonexistent, before the operation of the cause in producing it, but it holds that the gu@nas in the cause are the causes of the gu@nas in the effect, e.g. the black colour of the clay is the cause of the black colour of the effect, except in cases where heat comes as an extraneous cause to generate other qualities; thus when a clay jug is burnt, on account of the heat we get red colour, though the colour of the original clay and the jug was black. Another important exception is to be found in the case of the production of the parimâ@nas of dvya@nukas and trasare@nus which are not produced by the parimâ@nas of an a@nu or a dya@nuka, but by their

660

number as we have already seen.

Dissolution (Pralaya) and Creation (S@r@s@ti).

The doctrine of pralaya is accepted by all the Hindu systems except the Mîmâ@msâ [Footnote ref 1]. According to the Nyâya-Vais’e@sika view Îs’vara wishing to give some respite or rest to all living beings desires to bring about dissolution (_sa@mhâreccho bhavati_).

Simultaneously

with it the ad@r@s@ta force residing in all the souls and forming bodies, senses, and the gross elements, ceases to act (_s’akti-pratibandha_). As a result of this no further bodies, senses, or other products come into being. Then for the bringing about of the dissolution of all produced things (by the desire of Îs’vara) the separation of the atoms commences and thus all combinations as bodies or senses are disintegrated; so all earth is reduced to the disintegrated atomic state, then all ap, then all tejas and then all vâyu. These disintegrated atoms and the souls associated with dharma, adharma and past impressions (_sa@mskâra_) remain suspended in their own inanimate condition. For we know that souls in their natural condition are lifeless and knowledgeless, non-intelligent entities. It is only when these are connected with bodies that they possess knowledge through the activity of manas. In the state of pralaya owing to the ad@r@s@ta of souls the

661

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The doctrine of pralaya and s@r@s@ti is found only in later Nyâya-Vais’e@sika works, but the sûtras of both the systems seem to be silent on the matter.]

324

atoms do not conglomerate. It is not an act of cruelty on the part of Îs’vara that he brings about dissolution, for he does it to give some rest to the sufferings of the living beings.

At the time of creation, Îs’vara wishes to create and this desire of Îs’vara works in all the souls as ad@r@s@ta. This one eternal desire of Îs’vara under certain conditions of time (e.g. of pralaya) as accessory causes (_sahakâri_) helps the disintegration of atoms and at other times (e.g. that of creation) the constructive process of integration and unification of atoms for the world-creation.

When it acts in a specific capacity in the diverse souls it is called ad@r@s@ta. At the time of dissolution the creative function of this ad@r@s@ta is suspended and at the time of creation it finds full play.

At the time of creation action first begins in the vâyu atoms by the kinetic function of this ad@r@s@ta, by the contact of the souls with the atoms. By such action the air atoms come in contact

662

with one another and the dvya@nukas are formed and then in a similar way the trya@nukas are formed, and thus vâyu originates.

After vâyu, the ap is formed by the conglomeration of water atoms, and then the tejas atoms conglomerate and then the earth atoms. When the four elements are thus conglomerated in the gross form, the god Brahmâ and all the worlds are created by Îs’vara and Brahmâ is directed by Îs’vara to do the rest of the work. Brahmâ thus arranges for the enjoyment and suffering of the fruits of diverse kinds of karma, good or bad. Îs’vara brings about this creation not for any selfish purpose but for the good of all beings. Even here sorrows have their place that they may lead men to turn from worldly attachment and try for the attainment of the highest good, mukti. Moreover Îs’vara arranges for the enjoyment of pleasures and the suffering of pains according to the merits and demerits of men, just as in our ordinary experience we find that a master awards prizes or punishments according to good or bad deeds [Footnote ref 1]. Many Nyâya

books do not speak of the appointment of a Brahmâ as deputy for supervision of the due disposal of the fruits of karma according to merit or demerit. It is also held that pralaya and creation were brought about in accordance with the karma of men, or that it may be due to a mere play (_lîlâ_) of Îs’vara.

Îs’vara is one, for if there were many Îs’varas they might quarrel.

The will of Îs’vara not only brings about dissolution and creation,

663

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Nyâyakandalî, pp. 48-54.]

325

but also acts always among us in a general way, for without it our karmas could not ripen, and the consequent disposal of pleasures and sorrows to us and a corresponding change in the exterior world in the form of order or harmony could not happen.

The exterior world is in perfect harmony with men’s actions.

Their merits and demerits and all its changes and modifications take place in accordance with merits and demerits. This desire (_icchâ_) of Îs’vara may thus be compared with the icchâ of Îs’vara as we find it in the Yoga system.

Proof of the Existence of Îs’vara.

Sâ@mkhya asserts that the teleology of the prak@rti is sufficient to explain all order and arrangement of the cosmos. The Mîmâ@msakas, the Cârvâkas, the Buddhists and the Jains all deny the existence of Îs’vara (God). Nyâya believes that Îs’vara has fashioned this universe by his will out of the ever-existing atoms. For every effect (e.g. a jug) must have its cause. If

664

this be so, then this world with all its order and arrangement must also be due to the agency of some cause, and this cause is Îs’vara. This world is not momentary as the Buddhists suppose, but is permanent as atoms, is also an effect so far as it is a collocation of atoms and is made up of parts like all other individual objects (e.g. jug, etc.), which we call effects. The world being an effect like any other effect must have a cause like any other effect. The objection made against this view is that such effects as we ordinarily perceive may be said to have agents as their causes but this manifest world with mountains, rivers, oceans etc. is so utterly different in form from ordinary effects that we notice every day, that the law that every effect must have a cause cannot be said to hold good in the present case. The answer that Nyâya gives is that the concomitance between two things must be taken in its general aspect neglecting the specific peculiarities of each case of observed concomitance. Thus I had seen many cases of the concomitance of smoke with fire, and had thence formed the notion that “wherever there is smoke there is fire”; but if I had only observed small puffs of smoke and small fires, could I say that only small quantities of smoke could lead us to the inference of fire, and could I hold that therefore large volumes of smoke from the burning of a forest should not be sufficient reason for us to infer the existence of fire in the forest?

326

665

Thus our conclusion should not be that only smaller effects are preceded by their causes, but that all effects are invariably and unconditionally preceded by causes. This world therefore being an effect must be preceded by a cause, and this cause is Îs’vara. This cause we cannot see, because Îs’vara has no visible body, not because he does not exist. It is sometimes said that we see every day that shoots come out of seeds and they are not produced by any agent. To such an objection the Nyâya answer is that even they are created by God, for they are also effects. That we do not see any one to fashion them is not because there is no maker of them, but because the creator cannot be seen. If the objector could distinctly prove that there was no invisible maker shaping these shoots, then only could he point to it as a case of contradiction. But so long as this is not done it is still only a doubtful case of enquiry and it is therefore legitimate for us to infer that since all effects have a cause, the shoots as well as the manifest world being effects must have a cause.

This cause is Îs’vara. He has infinite knowledge and is all merciful.

At the beginning of creation He created the Vedas. He is like our father who is always engaged in doing us good [Footnote ref 1].

Tht Nyâya-Vais’e@sika Physics.

666

The four kinds of atoms are earth, water, fire, and air atoms.

These have mass, number, weight, fluidity (or hardness), viscosity (or its opposite), velocity, characteristic potential colour, taste, smell, or touch, not produced by the chemical operation of heat. Âkâs’a (space) is absolutely inert and structure-less being only as the substratum of sound, which is supposed to travel wave-like in the manifesting medium of air. Atomic combination is only possible with the four elements. Atoms cannot exist in an uncombined condition in the creation stage; atmospheric air however consists of atoms in an uncombined state.

Two atoms combine to form a binary molecule (_dvya@nuka_). Two, three, four, or five dvya@nukas form themselves into grosser molecules of trya@nuka, catura@nuka, etc. [Footnote ref 2]. Though this was the generally current view, there was also another view as has been pointed out by Dr B.N. Seal in his Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus, that the “atoms have also an inherent tendency to unite,” and that

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Jayanta’s Nyâyamañjarî, pp. 190-204, and Udayana’s Kusumâñjali with Prakâs’a and Îs’varânumâna of Raghunâtha.]

[Footnote 2: Kadâcit tribhirârabhyate iti trya@nukamityucyate, kadâcit caturbhirârabhyate kadâcit pañcabhiriti yathe@s@ta@m kalpanâ.

Nyâyakandalî, p. 32.]

327

they do so in twos, threes, or fours, “either by the atoms falling into groups of threes, fours, etc., directly, or by the successive addition of one atom to each preceding aggregate [Footnote ref l].” Of course the atoms are regarded as possessed of an incessant vibratory motion. It must however be noted in this connection that behind this physical explanation of the union of atoms there is the ad@r@s@ta, the will of Îs’vara, which gives the direction of all such unions in harmony with the principle of a “moral government of the universe,”

so that only such things are produced as can be arranged for the due disposal of the effects of karma. “An elementary substance thus produced by primary atomic combination may however suffer qualitative changes under the influence of heat (_pâkajotpatti_)”

The impact of heat corpuscles decomposes a dvya@nuka into the atoms and transforms the characters of the atoms determining them all in the same way. The heat particles continuing to impinge reunite the atoms so transformed to form binary or other molecules in different orders or arrangements, which account for the specific characters or qualities finally produced. The Vais’e@sika holds that there is first a disintegration into simple atoms, then change of atomic qualities, and then the final recombination, under the influence of heat. This doctrine is called the doctrine

668

of pîlupâka (heating of atoms). Nyâya on the other hand thinks that no disintegration into atoms is necessary for change of qualities, but it is the molecules which assume new characters under the influence of heat. Heat thus according to Nyâya directly affects the characters of the molecules and changes their qualities without effecting a change in the atoms. Nyâya holds that the heat-corpuscles penetrate into the porous body of the object and thereby produce the change of colour. The object as a whole is not disintegrated into atoms and then reconstituted again, for such a procedure is never experienced by observation. This is called the doctrine of pi@tharapâka (heating of molecules). This is one of the few points of difference between the later Nyâya and Vais’e@sika systems [Footnote ref 2].

Chemical compounds of atoms may take place between the

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Utpala’s commentary on Brhatsamh@itâ I. 7.]

[Footnote 2: See Dr B.N. Seal in P.C. Ray’s Hindu Chemistry, pp. 190-191, Nyâyamañjarî, p 438, and Udyotakara’s Vârttika. There is very little indication in the Nyâya and Vais’e@sika sûtras that they had any of those differences indicated here. Though there are slight indications of these matters in the Vais’e@sika sûtras (VII. 1), the Nyâya sûtras are

669

almost silent upon the matter. A systematic development of the theory of creation and atomic combinations appear to have taken place after Vâtsyâyana.]

328

atoms of the same bhûta or of many bhûtas. According to the Nyâya view there are no differences in the atoms of the same bhûta, and all differences of quality and characteristics of the compound of the same bhûta are due only to diverse collocations of those atoms. Thus Udyotakara says (III. i. 4) that there is no difference between the atom of a barley seed and paddy seed, since these are all but atoms of earth. Under the continued impact of heat particles the atoms take new characters. It is heat and heat alone that can cause the transformations of colours, tastes etc. in the original bhûta atoms. The change of these physical characters depends on the colours etc. of the constituent substances in contact, on the intensity or degree of heat and also on the species of tejas corpuscles that impinge on the atoms. Heat breaks bodies in contact into atoms, transforms their qualities, and forms separate bodies with them.

Pras’astapâda (the commentator of Vais’e@sika) holds that in the higher compounds of the same bhûta the transformation takes place (under internal heat) in the constituent atoms of the compound

670

molecules, atoms specially determined as the compound and not in the original atoms of the bhûta entering into the composition of the compound. Thus when milk is turned into curd, the transformation as curd takes place in the atoms determined as milk in the milk molecule, and it is not necessary that the milk molecule should be disintegrated into the atoms of the original bhûta of which the milk is a modification. The change as curd thus takes place in the milk atom, and the milk molecule has not to be disintegrated into k@siti or ap atoms. So again in the fertilized ovum, the germ and the ovum substances, which in the Vais’e@sika view are both isomeric modes of earth (with accompaniments

of other bhûtas) are broken up into homogeneous earth atoms, and it is these that chemically combine under the animal heat and biomotor force vâyu to form the germ (_kalala_). But when the germ plasm develops, deriving its nutrition from the blood of the mother, the animal heat breaks up the molecules of the germ plasm into its constituent atoms, i.e. atoms specifically determined which by their grouping formed the germ plasm.

These germ-plasm atoms chemically combine with the atoms of the food constituents and thus produce cells and tissues [Footnote ref 1].

This atomic contact is called ârambhaka-sa@myoga.

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Dr B.N. Seal’s Positive Sciences, pp. 104-108, and

671

Nyâyakandalî, pp. 33-34, “_S’arîrârambhe paramânava eva kâra@nam na s’ukra-s’onitasannipâta@h kriyâvibhâgâdinyâyena tayorvinâs’e sati utpannapâkajai@h paramâ@nubhirârambhât, na ca s’ukras’onitaparamâ@nûnâ@m

kas’cidvis’e@sa@h pârthivatvâvis’e@sât….Pitu@h s’ukra@m mâtuh s’onita@m

tayos sannipâtânantara@m ja@tharânalasambandhât s’ukras’onitârambhake@su paramâ@nu@su pûrvarûpâdivinâs’e samâ@nagu@nântarotpattau dvya@nukâdikrame@na kalalas’arirotpatti@h tatrântahkara@napraves’o…tatra

mâturâhâraraso mâtrayâ sa@mkrâmate, ad@r@s@tavas’âttatra punarja@tharânalasambandhât kalalârambhakaparamâ@nu@su kriyâvibhâgadinyâyena kalalas’arîre na@s@te samutpannapâkajai@h kalalârambhakaparamâ@nubhirad@r@s@tavas’âd upajâtakriyairâhâraparamâ@nitbhi@h saha sambhûya s’arîrântaramârakkyate.”_.]

329

In the case of poly-bhautik or bi-bhautik compounds there is another kind of contact called upa@s@tambha. Thus in the case of such compounds as oils, fats, and fruit juices, the earth atoms cannot combine with one another unless they are surrounded by the water atoms which congregate round the former, and by the infra-atomic forces thus set up the earth atoms take peculiar

672

qualities under the impact of heat corpuscles. Other compounds are also possible where the ap, tejas, or the vâyu atoms form the inner radicle and earth atoms dynamically surround them (e.g.

gold, which is the tejas atom with the earth atoms as the surrounding upa@s@tambhaka). Solutions (of earth substances in ap) are regarded as physical mixtures.

Udayana points out that the solar heat is the source of all the stores of heat required for chemical change. But there are differences in the modes of the action of heat; and the kind of contact with heat-corpuscles, or the kind of heat with chemical action which transforms colours, is supposed to differ from what transforms flavour or taste.

Heat and light rays are supposed to consist of indefinitely small particles which dart forth or radiate in all directions rectilineally with inconceivable velocity. Heat may penetrate through the interatomic space as in the case of the conduction of heat, as when water boils in a pot put on the fire; in cases of transparency light rays penetrate through the interatomic spaces with parispanda of the nature of deflection or refraction (_tiryag-gamana_).

express or manifest its object. If knowledge and the object are both but corresponding points in a parallel series, whence comes this correspondence? Why should knowledge illuminate the object. The doctrine of the Vijñâna vâdins, that it is knowledge alone that shows itself both as knowledge and as its object, is also irrational, for how can knowledge divide itself as subject and object in such a manner that knowledge as object should require the knowledge as subject to illuminate it? If this be the case we might again expect that knowledge as knowledge should also require another knowledge to manifest it and this another, and so on ad infinitum. Again if pramâ@na be defined as prâpa@na (capacity of being realized) then also it would not hold, for all things being

678

momentary according to the Buddhists, the thing known cannot be realized, so there would be nothing which could be called pramâ@na. These views moreover do not explain the origin of knowledge. Knowledge is thus to be regarded as an effect like any other effect, and its origin or production occurs in the same way as any other effect, namely by the joint collocation of causes intellectual and physical [Footnote ref 1]. There is no transcendent element involved in the production of knowledge, but it is a production on the same plane as that in which many physical phenomena are produced [Footnote ref 2].

The four Pramâ@nas of Nyâya.

We know that the Carvâkas admitted perception (_pratyak@sa_) alone as the valid source of knowledge. The Buddhists and the Vais’e@sika admitted two sources, pratyak@sa and inference (_anumâna_); Sâ@mkhya added s’abda (testimony) as the third source;

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Nyâyamañjarî, pp. 12-26.]

[Footnote 2: Discussing the question of the validity of knowledge Gañges’a, a later naiyâyika of great fame, says that it is derived as a result of

679

our inference from the correspondence of the perception of a thing with the activity which prompted us to realize it. That which leads us to successful activity is valid and the opposite invalid. When I am sure that if I work in accordance with the perception of an object I shall be successful, I call it valid knowledge. Tattvacintâma@ni, K.

Tarkavâgîs’a’s edition, Prâmâ@nyavâda.

“The Vais’e@sika sûtras tacitly admit the Vedas as a pramâ@na. The view that Vais’e@sika only admitted two pramâ@nas, perception and inference, is

traditionally accepted, “pratyak@sameka@mcârvâkâ@h ka@nâdasugatau puna@h

anumânañca taccâpi, etc.” Pras’astapâda divides all cognition (_buddhi_) as vidyâ (right knowledge) and avidyâ (ignorance). Under avidyâ he counts sa@ms’aya (doubt or uncertainty), viparyaya (illusion or error), anadhyavasâya (want of definite knowledge, thus when a man who had never seen a mango, sees it for the first time, he wonders what it may be) and svapna (dream). Right knowledge (_vidyâ_) is of four kinds, perception, inference, memory and the supernatural knowledge of the sages (_âr@sa_). Interpreting the Vais’e@sika sûtras I.i. 3, VI. i. 1, and VI.

i. 3, to mean that the validity of the Vedas depends upon the trustworthy character of their author, he does not consider scriptures as valid in themselves. Their validity is only derived by inference from the trustworthy character of their author. Arthâpatti (implication) and anupalabdhi (non-perception) are also classed as inference and upamâna

680

(analogy) and aitihya (tradition) are regarded as being the same as faith in trustworthy persons and hence cases of inference.]

333

Nyâya adds a fourth, upamâna (analogy). The principle on which the fourfold division of pramâ@nas depends is that the causal collocation which generates the knowledge as well as the nature or characteristic kind of knowledge in each of the four cases is different. The same thing which appears to us as the object of our perception, may become the object of inference or s’abda (testimony), but the manner or mode of manifestation of knowledge being different in each case, and the manner or conditions producing knowledge being different in each case, it is to be admitted that inference and s’abda are different pramâ@nas, though they point to the same object indicated by the perception. Nyâya thus objects to the incorporation of s’abda (testimony) or upamâna within inference, on the ground that since the mode of production of knowledge is different, these are to be held as different pramâ@nas [Footnote ref 1].

Perception (Pratyak@sa).

The naiyâyikas admitted only the five cognitive senses which

681

they believed to be composed of one or other of the five elements.

These senses could each come in contact with the special characteristic of that element of which they were composed. Thus the ear could perceive sound, because sound was the attribute of âkâs’a, of which the auditory sense, the ear, was made up. The eye could send forth rays to receive the colour, etc., of things.

Thus the cognitive senses can only manifest their specific objects by going over to them and thereby coming in contact with them.

The cognitive senses (_vâk, pâni, pâda, pâyu_, and upastha) recognized in Sâ@mkhya as separate senses are not recognized here as such for the functions of these so-called senses are discharged by the general motor functions of the body.

Perception is defined as that right knowledge generated by the contact of the senses with the object, devoid of doubt and error not associated with any other simultaneous sound cognition (such

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1:

Sâmagrîbhedâi phalabhedâcca pramâ@nabheda@h Anye eva hi sâmagrîphale pratyak@sali@ngayo@h Anye eva ca sâmagrîphale s’abdopamânayo@h. Nyâyamañjari, p. 33.]

682

334

as the name of the object as heard from a person uttering it, just at the time when the object is seen) or name association, and determinate [Footnote ref 1]. If when we see a cow, a man says here is a cow, the knowledge of the sound as associated with the percept cannot be counted as perception but as sound-knowledge (_s’abdapramâ@na_).

That right knowledge which is generated directly by the contact of the senses with the object is said to be the product of the perceptual process. Perception may be divided as indeterminate (_nirvikalpa_) and (_savikalpa_) determinate. Indeterminate perception is that in which the thing is taken at the very first moment of perception in which it appears without any association with name.

Determinate perception takes place after the indeterminate stage is just passed; it reveals things as being endowed with all characteristics and qualities and names just as we find in all our concrete experience. Indeterminate perception reveals the things with their characteristics and universals, but at this stage there being no association of name it is more or less indistinct. When once the names are connected with the percept it forms the determinate perception of a thing called savikalpa-pratyak@sa. If at the time of having the perception of a thing of which the name is not known to me anybody utters its name then the hearing of that should be regarded as a separate auditory name perception. Only that product is said to constitute nirvikalpa perception which results

683

from the perceiving process of the contact of the senses with the object. Of this nirvikalpa (indeterminate) perception it is held by the later naiyâyikas that we are not conscious of it directly, but yet it has to be admitted as a necessary first stage without which the determinate consciousness could not arise. The indeterminate perception is regarded as the first stage in the process of perception. At the second stage it joins the other conditions of perception in producing the determinate perception.

The contact of the sense with the object is regarded as being of six kinds: (1) contact with the dravya (thing) called sa@myoga, (2) contact with the gu@nas (qualities) through the thing (_sa@myukta-samavâya_) in which they inhere in samavâya (inseparable) relation, (3) contact with the gu@nas (such as colour etc.) in the generic character as universals of those qualities, e.g. colourness (rûpatva), which inhere in the gu@nas in the samavâya relation.

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Gañges’a, a later naiyâyika of great reputation, describes perception as immediate awareness (_pratyak@sasya sâk@sâtkâritvam lak@sa@nam_).]

335

This species of contact is called sa@myukta-samaveta-samavâya,

684

for the eye is in contact with the thing, in the thing the colour is in samavâya relation, and in the specific colour there is the colour universal or the generic character of colour in samavâya relation. (4) There is another kind of contact called samavâya by which sounds are said to be perceived by the ear. The auditory sense is âkâs’a and the sound exists in âkâs’a in the samavâya relation, and thus the auditory sense can perceive sound in a peculiar kind of contact called samaveta-samavâya. (5) The generic character of sound as the universal of sound (s’abdatva) is perceived by the kind of contact known as samaveta-samavâya. (6) There is another kind of contact by which negation (_abhâva_) is perceived, namely sa@myukta vis’e@sa@na (as qualifying contact). This is so called because the eye perceives only the empty space which is qualified by the absence of an object and through it the negation.

Thus I see that there is no jug here on the ground. My eye in this case is in touch with the ground and the absence of the jug is only a kind of quality of the ground which is perceived along with the perception of the empty ground. It will thus be seen that Nyâya admits not only the substances and qualities but all kinds of relations as real and existing and as being directly apprehended by perception (so far as they are directly presented).

The most important thing about the Nyâya-Vais’e@sika theory of perception is this that the whole process beginning from the contact of the sense with the object to the distinct and clear perception

685

of the thing, sometimes involving the appreciation of its usefulness or harmfulness, is regarded as the process of perception and its result perception. The self, the mind, the senses and the objects are the main factors by the particular kinds of contact between which perceptual knowledge is produced. All knowledge is indeed arthaprakâs’a, revelation of objects, and it is called perception when the sense factors are the instruments of its production and the knowledge produced is of the objects with which the senses are in contact. The contact of the senses with the objects is not in any sense metaphorical but actual. Not only in the case of touch and taste are the senses in contact with the objects, but in the cases of sight, hearing and smell as well.

The senses according to Nyâya-Vaisè@sika are material and we have seen that the system does not admit of any other kind of transcendental (_atîndriya_) power (_s’akti_) than that of actual vibratory

336

movement which is within the purview of sense-cognition [Footnote ref 1].

The production of knowledge is thus no transcendental occurrence, but is one which is similar to the effects produced by the conglomeration and movements of physical causes. When I perceive an orange, my visual or the tactual sense is in touch not only with its specific colour, or hardness, but also with the universals associated with them in a relation of inherence and also

686

with the object itself of which the colour etc. are predicated. The result of this sense-contact at the first stage is called âlocanajñâna (sense-cognition) and as a result of that there is roused the memory of its previous taste and a sense of pleasurable character (_sukhasâdhanatvasm@rti_) and as a result of that I perceive the orange before me to have a certain pleasure-giving character [Footnote ref 2]. It is urged that this appreciation of the orange as a pleasurable object should also be regarded as a direct result of perception through the action of the memory operating as a concomitant cause (sahakâri). I perceive the orange with the eye and understand the pleasure it will give, by the mind, and thereupon understand by the mind that it is a pleasurable object. So though this perception results immediately by the operation of the mind, yet since it could only happen in association with sense-contact, it must be considered as a subsidiary effect of sense-contact and hence regarded as visual perception. Whatever may be the successive intermediary processes, if the knowledge is a result of sense-contact and if it appertains to the object with which the sense is in contact, we should regard it as a result of the perceptual process.

I have pointed out above that Nyâya divided perception into two classes as nirvikalpa (indeterminate) and savikalpa (determinate) according as it is an earlier or a later stage. Vâcaspati says, that at the first stage perception reveals an object as a particular; the perception of an orange at this avikalpika or nirvikalpika stage gives us indeed all its colour, form, and also the universal of orangeness associated with it, but it does not reveal

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Udyotakara’s Nyâyavârttika, p. 37, and Ga@nges’a’s Tattvacintâma@ni, p. 401, Bibliotheca Indica.]

[Footnote 2: “_Indriye@nâlocya marîcîn uccâvacamuccalato nirvikalpena g@rhîtvâ pas’câttatropaghâtado@sât viparyyeti, savikalpako’sya pratyayo bhrânto jâyate tasmâdvijñânasya uvabhicâro nârthasya,_ Vâcaspati’s Tâtparyatîkâ,” p. 87.]

[Footnote 3: Nyâyamañjarî, p. 88.]

[Footnote 4: Ibid. pp. 89 and 184.]

[Footnote 5: Ibid. p. 184.]

[Footnote 6: Nyâyakandalî, pp. 177-181, “_S’uktisa@myuktenendriye@na

690

do@sasahakârinâ rajatasa@mskârasacivena sâd@rs’yamanurundhatâ s’uktikâvi@sayo rajatâdhyavasâya@h k@rta@h._”]

338

it in a subject-predicate relation as when I say “this is an orange.”

The avikalpika stage thus reveals the universal associated with the particular, but as there is no association of name at this stage, the universal and the particular are taken in one sweep and not as terms of relation as subject and predicate or substance and attribute (_jâtyâdisvarûpâvagâhi na tu jâtyâdînâ@m mitho vis’e@sa@navis’e@syabhâvâvagâhîti yâvat_) [Footnote ref 1]. He thinks that such a stage, when the object is only seen but not associated with name or a subject-predicate relation, can be distinguished in perception not only in the case of infants or dumb persons that do not know the names of things, but also in the case of all ordinary persons, for the association of the names and relations could be distinguished as occurring at a succeeding stage [Footnote ref 2].

S’rîdhara, in explaining the Vais’e@sika view, seems to be largely in agreement with the above view of Vâcaspati. Thus S’rîdhara says that in the nirvikalpa stage not only the universals were perceived but the differences as well. But as at this stage there is no memory of other things, there is no manifest differentiation and unification such as can only result by comparison. But the differences and the universals as they are in the thing are perceived, only they are not

691

consciously ordered as “different from this” or “similar to this,”

which can only take place at the savikalpa stage [Footnote ref 3].

Vâcaspati did not bring in the question of comparison with others, but had only spoken of the determinate notion of the thing in definite subject-predicate relation in association with names. The later Nyâya writers however, following Ga@nges’a, hold an altogether different opinion on the subject. With them nirvikalpa knowledge means the knowledge of mere predication without any association with the subject or the thing to which the predicate refers.

But such a knowledge is never testified by experience. The nirvikalpa stage is thus a logical stage in the development of perceptual cognition and not a psychological stage. They would

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Tâtparya@tikâ, p. 81, also ibid. p. 91, “_prathamamâlocito’rtha@h sâmânyavis’e@savân._”]

[Footnote 2: Ibid. p.84, “_tasmâdvyutpannasyâpi nâmadheyasmara@nâya pûrvame@sitavyo vinaiva nâmadheyamarthapratyaya@h._”]

[Footnote 3: Nyâyakandalî,p. 189 ff., “_ata@h savikalpakamicchatâ nirvikalpakamapye@sitavyam, tacca na sâmânyamâtram g@rh@nâti bhedasyâpi

pratibhâsanât nâpi svalak@sa@namâtram sâmânyâkârasyâpi sa@mvedanât vyaktyantaradars’ane pratisandhânâcca, kintu sâmânya@m

692

vis’e@sañcobhayamapi g@rh@nâti yadi paramida@m sâmânyamayam vis’e@sa@h

ityeva@m vivicya na pratyeti vastvantarânusandhânavirahât, pi@ndântarânuv@rttigraha@nâddhi sâmânya@m vivicyate, vyâv@rttigraha@nâdvis’e@soyamiti viveka@h._”]

339

not like to dispense with it for they think that it is impossible to have the knowledge of a thing as qualified by a predicate or a quality, without previously knowing the quality or the predicate (_vis’i@s@tavais’i@styajñânam prati hi

vis’e@sa@natâvacchedakaprakâra@m

jñâna@m kâra@na@m_) [Footnote ref 1]. So, before any determinate knowledge

such as “I see a cow,” “this is a cow” or “a cow” can arise it must be preceded by an indeterminate stage presenting only the indeterminate, unrelated, predicative quality as nirvikalpa, unconnected with universality or any other relations (_jâtyâdiyojanârahita@m vais’i@s@tyânavagâhi ni@sprakârakam nirvikalpaka@m_) [Footnote ref 2].

But this stage is never psychologically experienced (_atîndriya_) and it is only a logical necessity arising out of their synthetic conception of a proposition as being the relationing of a predicate with a subject. Thus Vis’vanâtha says in his Siddhântamuktâvalî, “the cognition which does not involve relationing cannot be perceptual for the perception is of the form ‘I know

693

the jug’; here the knowledge is related to the self, the knower, the jug again is related to knowledge and the definite content of jugness is related to the jug. It is this content which forms the predicative quality (_vis’e@sa@natâvacchedaka_) of the predicate ‘jug’

which is related to knowledge. We cannot therefore have the knowledge of the jug without having the knowledge of the predicative quality, the content [Footnote ref 3].” But in order that the knowledge of the jug could be rendered possible, there must be a stage at which the universal or the pure predication should be known and this is the nirvikalpa stage, the admission of which though not testified by experience is after all logically indispensably necessary. In the proposition “It is a cow,” the cow is an universal, and this must be intuited directly before it could be related to the particular with which it is associated.

But both the old and the new schools of Nyâya and Vais’e@sika admitted the validity of the savikalpa perception which the Buddhists denied. Things are not of the nature of momentary particulars, but they are endowed with class-characters or universals and thus our knowledge of universals as revealed by the perception of objects is not erroneous and is directly produced by objects. The Buddhists hold that the error of savikalpa perception consists in the attribution of jâti (universal), gu@na (quality),

____________________________________________________________________

694

[Footnote 1: Tattvacintâma@ni p. 812.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid. p. 809.]

[Footnote 3: Siddhântamuktâvalî on Bhâ@sâpariccheda kârikâ, 58.]

340

kriyâ (action), nâma (name), and dravya (substance) to things [Footnote ref

1]. The universal and that of which the universal is predicated are not different but are the same identical entity. Thus the predication of an universal in the savikalpa perception involves the false creation of a difference where there was none. So also the quality is not different from the substance and to speak of a thing as qualified is thus an error similar to the former. The same remark applies to action, for motion is not something different from that which moves. But name is completely different from the thing and yet the name and the thing are identified, and again the percept “man with a stick” is regarded as if it was a single thing or substance, though “man” and “stick” are altogether different and there is no unity between them. Now as regards the first three objections it is a question of the difference of the Nyâya ontological position with that of the Buddhists, for we know that Nyâya and Vais’e@sika believe jâti, gu@na

695

and kriyâ to be different from substance and therefore the predicating of them of substance as different categories related to it at the determinate stage of perception cannot be regarded as erroneous. As to the fourth objection Vâcaspati replies that the memory of the name of the thing roused by its sight cannot make the perception erroneous. The fact that memory operates cannot in any way vitiate perception. The fact that name is not associated until the second stage through the joint action of memory is easily explained, for the operation of memory was necessary in order to bring about the association. But so long as it is borne in mind that the name is not identical with the thing but is only associated with it as being the same as was previously acquired, there cannot be any objection to the association of the name. But the Buddhists further object that there is no reason why one should identify a thing seen at the present moment as being that which was seen before, for this identity is never the object of visual perception. To this Vâcaspati says that through the help of memory or past impressions (_sa@mskâra_) this can be considered as being directly the object of perception, for whatever may be the concomitant causes when the main cause of sense-contact is

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Nyâyamañjarî, pp. 93-100, “_Pañca caite kalpanâ bhavanti jâtikalpanâ, gu@nakalpanâ, kriyâkalpanâ, nâmakalpanâ dravyakalpanâ ceti,

696

tâs’ca kvacidabhede’pi bhedakalpanât kvacicca bhede’pyabhedakalpanât kalpanâ ucyante._” See Dharmakîrtti’s theory of Perception, pp. 151-4.

See also pp. 409-410 of this book.]

341

present, this perception of identity should be regarded as an effect of it. But the Buddhists still emphasize the point that an object of past experience refers to a past time and place and is not experienced now and cannot therefore be identified with an object which is experienced at the present moment. It has to be admitted that Vâcaspati’s answer is not very satisfactory for it leads ultimately to the testimony of direct perception which was challenged by the Buddhists [Footnote ref 1]. It is easy to see that early Nyâya-Vais’e@sika could not dismiss the savikalpa perception as invalid for it was the same as the nirvikalpa and differed from it only in this, that a name was associated with the thing of perception at this stage. As it admits a gradual development of perception as the progressive effects of causal operations continued through the contacts of the mind with the self and the object under the influence of various intellectual (e.g. memory) and physical (e.g. light rays) concomitant causes, it does not, like Vedânta, require that right perception should only give knowledge which was not previously acquired. The variation as well as production of knowledge in the soul depends upon

697

the variety of causal collocations.

Mind according to Nyâya is regarded as a separate sense and can come in contact with pleasure, pain, desire, antipathy and will. The later Nyâya writers speak of three other kinds of contact of a transcendental nature called sâmânyalak@sa@na, jñânalak@sa@na and yogaja (miraculous). The contact sâmânyalak@sa@na

is that by virtue of which by coming in contact with a particular we are transcendentally (_alaukika_) in contact with all the particulars (in a general way) of which the corresponding universal may be predicated. Thus when I see smoke and through it my sense is in contact with the universal associated with smoke my visual sense is in transcendental contact with all smoke in general. Jñânalak@sa@na contact is that by virtue of which we can associate the perceptions of other senses when perceiving by any one sense. Thus when we are looking at a piece of sandal wood our visual sense is in touch with its colour only, but still we perceive it to be fragrant without any direct contact of the object with the organ of smell. The sort of transcendental contact (_alaukika sannikar@sa_) by virtue of which this is rendered

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Tâtparya@tîkâ, pp. 88-95.]

698

342

possible is called jñânalak@sa@na. But the knowledge acquired by these two contacts is not counted as perception [Footnote ref l].

Pleasures and pains (_sukha_ and du@hkha) are held by Nyâya to be different from knowledge (jñâna). For knowledge interprets, conceives or illumines things, but sukha etc. are never found to appear as behaving in that character. On the other hand we feel that we grasp them after having some knowledge. They cannot be self-revealing, for even knowledge is not so; if it were so, then that experience which generates sukha in one should have generated the same kind of feeling in others, or in other words it should have manifested its nature as sukha to all; and this does not happen, for the same thing which generates sukha in one might not do so in others. Moreover even admitting for argument’s sake that it is knowledge itself that appears as pleasure and pain, it is evident that there must be some differences between the pleasurable and painful experiences that make them so different, and this difference is due to the fact that knowledge in one case was associated with sukha and in another case with du@hkha, This shows that sukha and du@hkha are not themselves knowledge.

Such is the course of things that sukha and du@hkha are generated by the collocation of certain conditions, and are manifested through or in association with other objects either in direct perception or

699

in memory. They are thus the qualities which are generated in the self as a result of causal operation. It should however be remembered that merit and demerit act as concomitant causes in their production.

The yogins are believed to have the pratyak@sa of the most distant things beyond our senses; they can acquire this power by gradually increasing their powers of concentration and perceive the subtlest and most distant objects directly by their mind. Even we ourselves may at some time have the notions of future events which come to be true, e.g. sometimes I may have the intuition that “To-morrow my brother will come,”

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1:_Siddhântamuktâvalî_ on Kârikâ 63 and 64. We must remember

that Ga@nges’a discarded the definition of perception as given in the Nyâya sûtra which we have discussed above, and held that perception should be defined as that cognition which has the special class-character of direct apprehension. He thinks that the old definition of perception as the cognition generated by sense-contact involves a vicious circle (_Tattvacintâma@ni_, pp. 538-546). Sense-contact is still regarded by him as the cause of perception, but it should not be included in the definition. He agrees to the six kinds of contact described first by Udyotakara as mentioned above.]

700

343

and this may happen to be true. This is called pratibhânajñâna, which is also to be regarded as a pratyak@sa directly by the mind. This is of course different from the other form of perception called mânasa-pratyak@sa, by which memories of past perceptions by other senses are associated with a percept visualized at the present moment; thus we see a rose and perceive that it is fragrant; the fragrance is not perceived by the eye, but the manas perceives it directly and associates the visual percept with it. According to Vedânta this acquired perception is only a case of inference. The prâtibha-pratyak@sa however is that which is with reference to the happening of a future event.

When a cognition is produced, it is produced only as an objective cognition, e.g. This is a pot, but after this it is again related to the self by the mind as “I know this pot.” This is effected by the mind again coming in contact for reperception of the cognition which had already been generated in the soul. This second reperception is called anuvyavasâya, and all practical work can proceed as a result of this anuvyavasâya [Footnote ref. l].

Inference.

701

Inference (_anumâna_) is the second means of proof (prâmâ@na) and the most valuable contribution that Nyâya has made has been on this subject. It consists in making an assertion about a thing on the strength of the mark or liñga which is associated with it, as when finding smoke rising from a hill we remember that since smoke cannot be without fire, there must also be fire in yonder hill. In an example like this smoke is technically called liñga, or hetu. That about which the assertion has been made (the hill in this example) is called pak@sa, and the term “fire” is called sâdhya. To make a correct inference it is necessary that the hetu or liñga must be present in the pak@sa,

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: This later Nyâya doctrine that the cognition of self in association with cognition is produced at a later moment must be contrasted with the triputîpratyak@sa doctrine of Prabhâkara, which holds that the object, knower and knowledge are all given simultaneously in knowledge. Vyavasâya (determinate cognition), according to Ga@nges’a, gives us only the cognition of the object, but the cognition that I am aware of this object or cognition is a different functioning succeeding the former one and is called anu (after) vyavasâya (cognition), “_idamaha@m

jânâmîti vyavasâye na bhâsate taddhakendriyasannikar@sâbhâvât kintvida@mvi@sayakajñânatvavis’i@s@tasya jñânasya vais’i@styamâtmani bhâsate; na ca svaprakâs’e vyavasâya tâd@rs’a@m svasya vais’i@s@tya@m

702

bhâsitumarhati, pûrva@m vis’e@sa@nasya tasyâjñânât, tasmâdidamaha@m jânâmiti na vyavasâya@h kintu anuvyavasâyah.” Tattvacintâma@ni, p.

795.]

344

and in all other known objects similar to the pak@sa in having the sâdhya in it (sapak@sa-sattâ), i.e., which are known to possess the sâdhya (possessing fire in the present example). The liñga must not be present in any such object as does not possess the sâdhya (_vipak@sa-vyâv@rtti_ absent from vipak@sa or that which does not possess the sâdhya). The inferred assertion should not be such that it is invalidated by direct perception {_pratyak@sa_) or the testimony of the s’âstra (_abâdhita-vi@sayatva_). The liñga should not be such that by it an inference in the opposite way could also be possible (_asat-pratipak@sa_). The violation of any one of these conditions would spoil the certitude of the hetu as determining the inference, and thus would only make the hetu fallacious, or what is technically called hetvâbhâsa or seeming hetu by which no correct inference could be made.

Thus the inference that sound is eternal because it is visible is fallacious, for visibility is a quality which sound (here the pak@sa) does not possess [Footnote ref l]. This hetvâbhâsa is technically called asiddha-hetu. Again, hetvâbhâsa of the second type, technically called viruddha-hetu, may be exemplified in the case that sound is eternal, since it is created; the hetu “being

703

created” is present in the opposite of sâdhya {_vipak@sa_), namely non-eternality, for we know that non-eternality is a quality which belongs to all created things. A fallacy of the third type, technically called anaikântika-hetu, is found in the case that sound is eternal, since it is an object of knowledge. Now “being an object of knowledge” (_prameyatva_) is here the hetu, but it is present in things eternal (i.e. things possessing sâdhya), as well as in things that are not eternal (i.e. which do not possess the sâdhya), and therefore the concomitance of the hetu with the sâdhya is not absolute (_anaikântika_). A fallacy of the fourth type, technically called kâlâtyayâpadi@s@ta, may be found in the example—fire is not hot, since it is created like a jug, etc.

Here pratyak@sa shows that fire is hot, and hence the hetu is fallacious. The fifth fallacy, called prakara@nasama, is to be found in cases where opposite hetus are available at the same time for opposite conclusions, e.g. sound like a jug is non-eternal,

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: It should be borne in mind that Nyâya did not believe in the doctrine of the eternality of sound, which the Mîmâ@msâ did. Eternality of sound meant with Mîmâ@msâ the theory that sounds existed as eternal indestructible entities, and they were only manifested in our ears under certain conditions, e.g. the stroke of a drum or a particular kind of movement of the vocal muscles.]

704

345

since no eternal qualities are found in it, and sound like âkâs’a is eternal, since no non-eternal qualities are found in it.

The Buddhists held in answer to the objections raised against inference by the Cârvâkas, that inferential arguments are valid, because they are arguments on the principle of the uniformity of nature in two relations, viz. tâdâtmya (essential identity) and tadutpatti (succession in a relation of cause and effect). Tâdâtmya is a relation of genus and species and not of causation; thus we know that all pines are trees, and infer that this is a tree since it is a pine; tree and pine are related to each other as genus and species, and the coinherence of the generic qualities of a tree with the specific characters of a pine tree may be viewed as a relation of essential identity (_tâdâtmya_). The relation of tadutpatti is that of uniformity of succession of cause and effect, e.g. of smoke to fire.

Nyâya holds that inference is made because of the invariable association (_niyama_) of the li@nga or hetu (the concomitance of which with the sâdhya has been safeguarded by the five conditions noted above) with the sâdhya, and not because of such specific relations as tâdâtmya or tadutpatti. If it is held that the

705

inference that it is a tree because it is a pine is due to the essential identity of tree and pine, then the opposite argument that it is a pine because it is a tree ought to be valid as well; for if it were a case of identity it ought to be the same both ways. If in answer to this it is said that the characteristics of a pine are associated with those of a tree and not those of a tree with those of a pine, then certainly the argument is not due to essential identity, but to the invariable association of the li@nga (mark) with the li@ngin (the possessor of li@nga), otherwise called niyama.

The argument from tadutpatti (association as cause and effect) is also really due to invariable association, for it explains the case of the inference of the type of cause and effect as well as of other types of inference, where the association as cause and effect is not available (e.g. from sunset the rise of stars is inferred). Thus it is that the invariable concomitance of the li@nga with the li@ngin, as safeguarded by the conditions noted above, is what leads us to make a valid inference [Footnote ref l].

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 Nyâyamañjari on anumâna.]

706

346

that wherever there was smoke there was fire. Now when we perceived that there was smoke in yonder hill, we remembered the concomitance (_vyâpti_) 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@rtîya-li@nga-parâmars’a) is thus the cause (_anumitikara@na_ or anumâna) of the inference (_anumiti_). The concomitance of smoke with fire is technically called vyâpti. When this refers to the concomitance of cases containing smoke with those having fire, it is called bahirvyâpti; 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 antarvyâpti. The Buddhists since they did not admit the notions of generality, etc. preferred antarvyâpti view of concomitance to bahirvyâpti 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 (_sâdhya_), how are we to assure ourselves in each case that the process of ascertaining the concomitance (_vyâptigraha_)

707

had been correct, and the observation of concomitance had been valid. The Mîmâ@msâ 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 Nyâya 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 anvayavyâpti and the latter vyatirekavyâpti. 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 Antarvyâptisamarthana, by Ratnâkaras’ânti in the Six Buddhist Nyâya Tracts, Bibliotheca Indica, 1910.]

347

708

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 vinâ na bhavanam iti bhuyodars’ana@m, Nyâyamañjarî,_

p. 122), then only could we say that there was any relation of concomitance (_vyâpti_} 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 (_upâdhi_) associated with the hetu which was the real hetu. Thus we know that fire in green wood (_ârdrendhana_) 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 (_vyâghâta_). Thus such doubts as lead us to the suspension of all work should not disturb or unsettle the notion of vyâpti or concomitance at which we had arrived by careful observation and consideration [Footnote ref 2]. The Buddhists and the naiyâyikas generally agreed as to the method

709

of forming the notion of concomitance or vyâpti (_vyâptigraha_), 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 Nyâya 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 Tâtparya@tîkâ on anumâna and vyâptigraha.]

[Footnote 2: Tâtparya@tîkâ on vyâptigraha, and Tattvacintâma@ni of Ga@nges’a on vyâptigraha.]

348

infer the particular cause from the effect. Nyâya holds however

710

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 Nyâya 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 Nyâya works great emphasis is laid on the necessity of getting ourselves assured that there was no such upâdhi (condition) associated with the hetu on account of which the concomitance happened, but that the hetu was unconditionally associated with the sâdhya in a relation of inseparable concomitance. Thus all fire does not produce smoke; fire must be associated with green wood in order to

711

produce smoke. Green wood is thus the necessary condition (_upâdhi_) 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 vyâpti, 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 (_bhûyodars’ana_).

Pras’astapâda 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 Nyâya qualifications of pak@sasattva, sapak@sasattva and vipak@sâsattva_ of a valid reason (hetu). Pras’astapâda further quotes a verse to say that this is the same as what Kâs’yapa (believed to be the family name of Ka@nâda) said. Ka@nâda says that we can infer a cause from the effect, the effect from the cause, or we can infer one

712

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 (_prasiddhipûrvakatva_) with the object of inference. What this association was according to Ka@nâda can also be understood for he tells us (III. i. 15) that where there is no proper association, the reason (hetu) is either nonexistent 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@sâsattva and sapak@sâsattva, 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’astapâda says that he is giving us the view of Ka@nâda he is faithful to it. Pras’astapâda 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@nâda’s enumeration of types of inference such as “a cause is inferred from its effect, or an effect from the cause,” etc., Pras’astapâda holds that these are not the

713

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 sâmânyato 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 (_sâsnâ_), 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 sâmânyato 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’citârtha_) 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 parârthânumâna. We know that the distinction of svârthânumâna (inference for oneself) and parârthânumâna

714

(inference for others) was made by the Jains and Buddhists.

Pras’astapâda 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 parârthânumâna. But this need not be considered as an entirely new innovation of Pras’astapâda, for in IX. 2, Ka@nâda himself definitely alludes to this distinction (_asyeda@m kâryyakâra@nasambandhas’câvayavâdbhavati_). The five premisses which are

called in Nyâya pratijñâ, hetu d@r@s@tânta, upanaya, and nigamana are called in Vais’e@sika pratijñâ, apades’a, nidars’ana, anusandhâna, and pratyâmnâya. Ka@nâda however does not mention the name of any of these premisses excepting the second “apades’a.” Pratijñâ is of course the same as we have in Nyâya, and the term nidars’ana is very similar to Nyâya d@r@s@tânta, 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]).

The nature and ascertainment of concomitance is the most important part of inference. Vâtsyâyana 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@ngaparâmars’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@rhîto li@ngaparâmars’o_).

But he is silent with regard to the nature of concomitance.

Udyotakara’s criticisms of Di@nnâga as shown by Vâcaspati have no reference to this point The doctrine of tâdâtmya and tadutpatti was therefore in all probability a new contribution to Buddhist logic by Dharmakîrtti. Dharmakîrtti’s contention was

In early Nyâya books three kinds of inference are described, namely pûrvavat, s’e@savat, and sâmânyato-d@r@s@ta. Pûrvavat 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; sâmânyato-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. Nyâyamañjarî mentions another form of anumâna, namely paris’e@samâna (_reductio ad absurdum_), which consists in asserting anything (e.g. consciousness) of any other thing (e.g. âtman), because it was already

720

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 (_sâdhya_) by virtue of the unconditional and invariable concomitance of the hetu, called the vyâpti-niyama. In the new school of Nyâya (Navya-Nyâya) a formal distinction of three kinds of inference occupies an important place, namely anvayavyatireki, kevalânvayi, and kevalavyatireki. Anvayavyatireki is that inference where the vyâpti 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 (_svârthânumâna_) or for the sake of convincing others (_parârthânumâna_). 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 pratijña (e.g. the hill is fiery), hetu (since it has smoke), udâhara@na (where there is smoke there is fire, as in the kitchen), upanaya (this hill has smoke), niga@mana (therefore it has got

____________________________________________________________________

721

[Footnote 1: Vâtsyâya@na’s bhâsya, Udyotakara’s Vârttika and Tâtparyya@tîkâ, I.i. 5.]

354

fire). Kevalânvayi is that type of inference, the vyâpti 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, vâcyam prameyatvât_).” 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 (_vâcyatva_); the vyâpti here has therefore to be based necessarily on cases of agreement—wherever there is prameyatva or an object of knowledge, there is vâcyatva 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

722

special traits of it as was possessed by it and it alone.

Upamâna and S’abda.

The third pramâ@na, which is admitted by Nyâya and not by Vais’e@sika, is upamâna, 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 upamâna. 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 upamâna process when the association of the unknown animal with its name is made by the observer

355

723

on the strength of the experience of the similarity of the unknown animal to a known one. The naiyâyikas 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 upamâna [Footnote ref 1].

S’abdapramâ@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 Îs’vara himself. The Vedas give us right knowledge not of itself, but because they came out as the utterances of the infallible Îs’vara. The Vais’e@sikas did not admit s’abda as a separate pramâ@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 sûtras, 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 Nyâya-Vais’e@sika.

724

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

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Nyâyamañjarî on upamâna. The oldest Nyâya 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 “upamâna.” When Pras’astapâda held that upamâna should be treated as a case of testimony (_âptavacana_), he had probably this interpretation in view. But Udyotakara and Vâcaspati 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 upamâna. What Vâtsyâya@na meant is not very clear, but Di@nnâga supposes that according to him the result of upamâna was the knowledge of similarity or the knowledge of a thing having similarity. Vâcaspati of course holds that he has correctly interpreted Vâtsyâya@na’s intention. It is however definite that upamâna means the associating of a name to a new object (_samâkhyâsambandhapratipattirupamânârtha@h_, Vâtsyâya@na). Jayanta points out that it is the preception of similarity which directly

725

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’astapâda and Nyâyakandalî, pp. 220-22, Vâtsyâya@na, Udyotakara, Vâcaspati and Jayanta on Upamâna.]

[Footnote 2: See Kumârila’s treatment of abhâva in the S’lokavârttika, pp. 473-492.]

356

and his followers, whose philosophy we shall deal with in the next chapter, hold that negation (_abhâva_) appears as an intuition (_mânam_) with reference to the object negated where there are no means of ordinary cognition (_pramâ@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 nonexistence of a jug) to the ground, we see both the ground and the nonexistence 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 nonexistence of the jug. But even then since in the case of the perception of the jug there is sense-contact,

726

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 nonexistence 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 nonexistence 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 nonexistence of tigers there in the morning, even without perceiving the place and without any operation of the memory of the nonexistence of tigers. There is no question of there being any inference in the rise of our notion of nonexistence, 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 nonexistence, and when the question of the concomitance of non-perception with nonexistence is brought in, the same difficulty about the notion of nonexistence (_abhâva_) 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. Nyâya however says that the perception of nonexistence (e.g. there is no jug here) is a unitary perception

727

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 nonexistence 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 nonexistence 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 nonexistence. Negation or nonexistence can be cognized even without any sense-contact. Nonexistence 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 nonexistence 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 nonexistence only through the apprehension

728

of its locus. In the case when nonexistence is said to be apprehended later on it is really no later apprehension of nonexistence but a memory of nonexistence (e.g. of jug) perceived before along with the perception of the locus of nonexistence (e.g. ground). Negation or nonexistence (_abhâva_) can thus, according to Nyâya, 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 (_bhâva_) 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

729

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) svabhâvânupalabdhi (natural non-perception—there is no jug because none is perceived); (2) kâra@nânupalabdhi (non-perception of cause—there is no smoke here, since there is no fire); (3) vyâpakânupalabdhi (non-perception of the species—there is no pine here, since there is no tree); (4) kâryânupalabdhi (non-perception of effects—there are not the causes of smoke here, since there is no smoke); (5) svabhâvaviruddhopalabdhi (perception of contradictory natures—there is no cold touch here because of fire); (6) viruddhakâryopalabdhi (perception of contradictory effects—there is no cold touch here because of smoke); (7) virudhavyâptopalabdhi (opposite concomitance—past is not of necessity destructible, since it depends on other causes); (8) kâryyaviruddhopalabdhi (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) kâra@naviruddhopalabdhi (opposite causes—there is no shivering through cold here, since he is near the fire); (11) kâra@naviruddhakâryyopalabdhi (effects of opposite causes—this place is not occupied by men of shivering sensations for it

730

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 (_heturnâbhâvasamvida@h_). All that we can say is this that there are certain situations which justify the use (_yogyatâ_) of negative appellations. But this situation or yogyatâ 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 Nyâyabindu, p. 11, and Nyâyamañjarî, pp. 53-7.]

359

leads us to speak of having perceived the negation of the jug (_anupalambha@h abhâva@m vyavahârayati_) [Footnote ref 1].

The Nyâya reply against this is that the perception of positive existents is as much a fact as the perception of negation, and we

731

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 sûtra (IX. i. 6) seems to take abhâva in a similar way as Kumârila 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) prâgabhâva (the negation preceding the production of an object—e.g. of the jug before it is made by the potter); (2) dhva@msâbhâva (the negation

732

following the destruction of an object—as of the jug after it is destroyed by the stroke of a stick); (3) anyonyâbhâva (mutual negation—e.g. in the cow there is the negation of the horse and

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Nyâyabindu@tîkâ, pp. 34 ff., and also Nyâyamañjarî, pp. 48-63.]

[Footnote 2 Pras’astapâda 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 nonexistence, S’rîdbara in commenting upon it says that the non-preception of a sensible object is the sign (_li@nga_) of its nonexistence. But evidently he is not satisfied with the view for he says that nonexistence is also directly perceived by the senses (_bhâvavad abhâvo’pîndriyagraha@nayogyah_) and that there is an actual sense-contact with nonexistence which is the collocating cause of the preception of nonexistence (_abhâvendriyasannikar@so’pi abhâvagraha@nasâmagrî_), Nyâyakandalî_, pp. 225-30.]

360

in the horse that of the cow); (4) atyantâbhâva (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].

733

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

It is probable that the Nyâya 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, vâda, jalpa, vita@n@dâ, hetvâbhâsa, chala, jâti and nigrahasthâna.

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 âtman, in which each of them tries to prove his own thesis with reasons, each of the theses is called a vâda. 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@dâ when it is only a destructive

734

criticism which seeks to refute the opponent’s doctrine without seeking to establish or formulate any new doctrine. Hetvâbhâsas are those which appear as hetus but are really not so. Nyâya sûtras enumerate five fallacies (_hetvâbhâsas_) of the middle (hetu): savyabhicâra (erratic), viruddha (contradictory), prakara@nasama (tautology), sâddhyasama (unproved reason) and kâlâtîta (inopportune).

They argued that since consciousness, pleasures, pains, willing, etc. could not belong to our body or the senses, there must be

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Nyâyamañjarî, pp. 586-659, and Târkikarak@sâ of Varadarâja and Niska@n@taka of Mallinâtha, pp. 185 ff.]

363

some entity to which they belonged; the existence of the self is not proved according to Nyâya merely by the notion of our self-consciousness, as in the case of Mîmâ@msâ, for Nyâya 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 âtman been experienced, nor has it been found to suffer any destruction like the body, so the soul must be eternal. It is not

739

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 âtman 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.

Îs’vara and Salvation.

Nyâya seeks to establish the existence of Îs’vara on the basis of inference. We know that the Jains, the Sâ@mkhya and the Buddhists did not believe in the existence of Îs’vara and offered many antitheistic

740

arguments. Nyâya wanted to refute these and prove the existence of Is’vara by an inference of the sâmânyato-d@r@s@ta type.

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1:_Jñânasamavâyanibandhanamevâtmanas’cetayit@rtvam_, &c.

See

Nyâyamañjarî, 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 Nyâya 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@tatâ_) of the universe it could not be argued that the universe was

741

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, Nyâya 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.

742

Just as the potter knows all the purposes of the jug that he makes,

365

so Îs’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 Îs’vara also can by his will create the universe though he has no body. Some, however, say that if any association of body with Îs’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 naiyâyikas 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

743

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 (_mithyâjñâna_) 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 padârthas and as Nyâya says, of the proofs (_pramâ@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@sabhâvanâ_), 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 Patañjali) are also destroyed.

With the destruction of attachment actions (_prav@rtti_) for the

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote:1: See Nyâyamañjarî, pp. 190-204,_ Îs’varânumâna_ of Raghunâtha

S’iro@ma@ni and Udayana’s Kusumâñjalî.]

744

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 Nyâya-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 (_ânanda_), 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: Nyâyamañjarî, pp. 499-533.]

745