Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Books, poems, drama…

A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 by Surendranath Dasgupta

Part 9 out of 13

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 1.4 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

of earth materials.

The fourth is _spars'a_ (touch), that quality which can be apprehended
only by the skin. There are three kinds of touch, cold,
hot, neither hot nor cold. Spars'a belongs to k@siti; ap, tejas, and
vayu. The fifth _s'abda_ (sound) is an attribute of akas'a. Had there
been no akas'a there would have been no sound.

The sixth is sa@mkhya (number), that entity of quality belonging
to things by virtue of which we can count them as one, two, three,
etc. The conception of numbers two, three, etc. is due to a relative
oscillatory state of the mind (_apek@sabuddhi_); thus when there are
two jugs before my eyes, I have the notion--This is one jug and
that is another jug. This is called apek@sabuddhi; then in the
two jugs there arises the quality of twoness (_dvitva_) and then an
indeterminate perception (_nirvikalpa-dvitva-gu@na_) of dvitva in us
and then the determinate perceptions that there are the two jugs.
The conceptions of other numbers as well as of many arise in a
similar manner [Footnote ref 1].

The seventh is _parimiti_ (measure), that entity of quality in
things by virtue of which we perceive them as great or small and
speak of them as such. The measure of the partless atoms is
called _parima@n@dala parima@na_; it is eternal, and it cannot generate
the measure of any other thing. Its measure is its own absolutely;
when two atoms generate a dyad (_dvya@nuka_) it is not
the measure of the atom that generates the a@nu (atomic) and
the _hrasva_ (small) measure of the dyad molecule (_dvya@nuka_),
for then the size (_parima@na_) of it would have been still smaller
than the measure of the atom (_parima@n@dala_), whereas the
measure of the dya@nuka is of a different kind, namely the
small (_hrasva_) [Footnote ref 2]. Of course two atoms generate a dyad, but
then the number (sa@mkhya) of the atom should be regarded as
bringing forth a new kind of measure, namely the small (_hrasva_)
measure in the dyads. So again when three dyads (dya@nuka)
compose a trya@nuka the number and not the measure "small"


[Footnote 1: This is distinctively a Vais'e@sika view introduced by
Pras'astapada. Nyaya seems to be silent on this matter. See S'a@nkara
Mis'ra's _Upaskara_, VII. ii. 8.]

[Footnote 2 It should be noted that the atomic measure appears in two forms
as eternal as in "parama@nus" and non-eternal as in the dvya@nuka. The
parima@n@dala parima@na is thus a variety of a@nuparima@na. The
a@nuparima@na and the hrasvaparima@na represent the two dimensions of
the measure of dvya@nukas as mahat and dirgha are with reference
to trya@nukas. See _Nyayakandali_, p. 133.]


(_hrasva_) of the dyad is the cause of the measure "great" (_mahat_)
of the trya@nuka. But when we come to the region of these gross
trya@nukas we find that the "great" measure of the trya@nukas is
the cause of the measure of other grosser bodies composed by
them. For as many trya@nukas constitute a gross body, so much
bigger does the thing become. Thus the cumulation of the trya@nukas
of mahat parima@na makes things of still more mahat parima@na.
The measure of trya@nukas is not only regarded as mahat
but also as dirgha (long) and this dirgha parima@na has to be admitted
as coexisting with mahat parima@na but not identical, for
things not only appear as great but also as long (_dirgha_). Here
we find that the accumulation of trya@nukas means the accumulation
of "great" (_mahat_) and "long" (_dirgha_) parima@na, and hence
the thing generated happens to possess a measure which is greater
and longer than the individual atoms which composed them.
Now the hrasva parima@na of the dyads is not regarded as having
a lower degree of greatness or length but as a separate and distinct
type of measure which is called small (_hrasva_). As accumulation
of grossness, greatness or length, generates still more greatness,
grossness and length in its effect, so an accumulation of the
hrasva (small) parim_a@na ought to generate still more hrasva
parim_a@na, and we should expect that if the hrasva measure of
the dyads was the cause of the measure of the trya@nukas, the
trya@nukas should be even smaller than the dya@nukas. So also if
the atomic and circular (_parima@n@dala_) size of the atoms is regarded
as generating by their measure the measure of the dya@nukas,
then the measure of the dya@nukas ought to be more atomic
than the atoms. The atomic, small, and great measures should
not be regarded as representing successively bigger measures produced
by the mere cumulation of measures, but each should be
regarded as a measure absolutely distinct, different from or foreign
to the other measure. It is therefore held that if grossness in the
cause generates still more greatness in the effect, the smallness
and the parima@n@dala measure of the dyads and atoms ought to
generate still more smallness and subtleness in their effect.
But since the dyads and the trya@nuka molecules are seen to
be constituted of atoms and dyads respectively, and yet are
not found to share the measure of their causes, it is to be argued
that the measures of the atoms and dyads do not generate the
measure of their effects, but it is their _number_ which is the cause


of the measure of the latter. This explains a@nuparima@na, hrasva
parima@na, mahat parima@na, and dirgha parima@na. The parima@na
of akas'a, kala, dik and atman which are regarded as all-pervasive,
is said to be paramamahat (absolutely large). The parima@nas
of the atoms, akas'a, kala, dik, manas, and atman are regarded
as eternal (nitya). All other kinds of parima@nas as belonging to
non-eternal things are regarded as non-eternal.

The eighth is _p@rthaktva_ (mutual difference or separateness of
things), that entity or quality in things by virtue of which things
appear as different (e.g. this is different from that). Difference is
perceived by us as a positive notion and not as a mere negation
such as this jug is not this pot.

The ninth is _sa@myoga_ (connection), that entity of gu@na by
virtue of which things appear to us as connected.

The tenth is _vibhaga_ (separation), that entity of gu@na which
destroys the connection or contact of things.

The eleventh and twelfth gu@nas, _paratva_ and _aparatva_, give
rise in us to the perceptions of long time and short time, remote
and near.

The other gu@nas such as _buddhi_(knowledge),_sukha_ (happiness),
_du@hkha_ (sorrow), _iccha_ (will), _dve@sa_ (antipathy or hatred) and
_yatna_ (effort) can occur only with reference to soul.

The characteristic of _gurutva_ (heaviness) is that by virtue of
which things fall to the ground. The gu@na of _sneha_ (oiliness)
belongs to water. The gu@na of _sa@mskara_ is of three kinds, (i) _vega_
(velocity) which keeps a thing moving in different directions,
(2) _sthiti-sthapaka_ (elasticity) on account of which a gross thing
tries to get back its old state even though disturbed, (3) _bhavana_
is that quality of atman by which things are constantly practised or by
which things experienced are remembered and recognized [Footnote ref l].
_Dharma_ is the quality the presence of which enables the soul to enjoy
happiness or to attain salvation [Footnote ref 2]. _Adharma_ is


[Footnote 1: Pras'astapada says that bhavana is a special characteristic
of the soul, contrary to intoxication, sorrow and knowledge, by which
things seen, heard and felt are remembered and recognized. Through
unexpectedness (as the sight of a camel for a man of South India),
repetition (as in studies, art etc.) and intensity of interest, the
sa@mskara becomes particularly strong. See _Nyayakandali_, p. 167.
Ka@nada however is silent on these points. He only says that by a
special kind of contact of the mind with soul and also by the sa@mskara,
memory (sm@rti) is produced (ix. 2. 6).]

[Footnote 2: Pras'astapada speaks of _dharma_ (merit) as being a quality
of the soul. Thereupon S'ridhara points out that this view does not admit
that dharma is a power of karma (_nakarmasamarthyam_). Sacrifice etc.
cannot be dharma for these actions being momentary they cannot generate
the effects which are only to be reaped at a future time. If the action
is destroyed its power (_samarthya_) cannot last. So dharma is to be
admitted as a quality generated in the self by certain courses of conduct
which produce happiness for him when helped by certain other conditions
of time, place, etc. Faith (_s'raddha_), non-injury, doing good to all
beings, truthfulness, non-stealing, sex-control, sincerity, control of
anger, ablutions, taking of pure food, devotion to particular gods,
fasting, strict adherence to scriptural duties, and the performance of
duties assigned to each caste and stage of life, are enumerated by
Pras'astapada as producing dharma. The person who strictly adheres to
these duties and the _yamas_ and _niyamas_ (cf. Patanjali's Yoga) and
attains Yoga by a meditation on the six padarthas attains a dharma
which brings liberation (_mok@sa_). S'ridhara refers to the Sa@mkhya-Yoga
account of the method of attaining salvation (_Nyayakandali_, pp. 272-280).
See also Vallabha's _Nyayalilavati_, pp. 74-75. (Bombay, 1915.)]


the opposite quality, the presence of which in the soul leads a
man to suffer. _Ad@r@s@ta_ or destiny is that unknown quality of
things and of the soul which brings about the cosmic order, and
arranges it for the experience of the souls in accordance with
their merits or demerits.

_Karma_ means movement; it is the third thing which must
be held to be as irreducible a reality as dravya or gu@na. There
are five kinds of movement, (1) upward, (2) downward, (3) contraction,
(4) expansion, (5) movement in general. All kinds of
karmas rest on substances just, as the gu@nas do, and cause the
things to which they belong to move.

_Samanya_ is the fourth category. It means the genus, or aspect
of generality or sameness that we notice in things. Thus in spite
of the difference of colour between one cow and another, both of
them are found to have such a sameness that we call them cows.
In spite of all diversity in all objects around us, they are all
perceived as _sat_ or existing. This sat or existence is thus a sameness,
which is found to exist in all the three things, dravya, gu@na,
and karma. This sameness is called _samanya_ or _jati_, and it is
regarded as a separate thing which rests on dravya, gu@na, or
karma. This highest genus _satta_ (being) is called _parajati_ (highest
universal), the other intermediate jatis are called aparajati (lower
universals), such as the genus of dravya, of karma, or of gu@na, or
still more intermediate jatis such as _gotvajati_ (the genus cow),
_nilatvajati_ (the genus blue). The intermediate jatis or genera
sometimes appear to have a special aspect as a species, such as
_pas'utva_ (animal jati) and _gotva_ (the cow jati); here however
gotva appears as a species, yet it is in reality nothing but a jati.
The aspect as species has no separate existence. It is jati which
from one aspect appears as genus and from another as species.


This jati or _samanya_ thus must be regarded as having a separate
independent reality though it is existent in dravya, gu@na and
karma. The Buddhists denied the existence of any independent
reality of samanya, but said that the sameness as cow
was really but the negation of all non-cows (_apoha_). The perception
of cow realizes the negation of all non-cows and this
is represented in consciousness as the sameness as cow. He who
should regard this sameness to be a separate and independent
reality perceived in experience might also discover two horns
on his own head [Footnote ref 1]. The Nyaya-Vais'e@sika said that negation
of non-cows is a negative perception, whereas the sameness perceived
as cow is a positive perception, which cannot be explained
by the aforesaid negation theory of the Buddhists. Samanya has
thus to be admitted to have a separate reality. All perception as
sameness of a thing is due to the presence of this thing in that
object [Footnote ref l]. This jati is eternal or non-destructible, for even
with the destruction of individuals comprehended within the jati, the
latter is not destroyed [Footnote ref 2].

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
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 Panditas'oka says that there is no single thing
running through different individuals (e.g. cooks) by virtue of which the
samanya 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
jati 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 non-existent
(_yadyadupalabdhilaksanapraptam sannopalabhyate tattadasat_). Samanya is
such, therefore samanya is non existent. No samanya 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 samanya
can be pointed out as being externally perceptible
--_Samanyadusanadikprasarita_--in _Six Buddhist Nyaya Tracts_. The Vedanta
also does not think that either by perception or by inference we can know
jati as a separate substance. So it discards jati. See _Vedantaparibhasa_,
_Sikhamani_ and _Mamprabha_, pp. 69-71. See also Sriharsa's
_Khan@danakhandakhadya, pp 1079-1086.]

[Footnote 2: Similarity (sadrs'ya_) is not regarded as a separate category,
for it is defined as identity in difference (_tadbhinnatve sati


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

_Samavaya_, 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 samanya, karana
(cause) and karya (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 jati 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
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. Samavaya
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 samavaya relation which was never brought into being
by anybody always remains [Footnote ref 1].

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

The Theory of Causation.

The Nyaya-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 Vedanta does not admit the existence of the relation of
samavaya as subsisting between two different entities (e.g. substance
and qualities). Thus S'a@nkara says (_Brahma-sutrabha@sya II. ii. 13_)
that if a samavaya relation is to be admitted to connect two different
things, then another samavaya 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 (_anavastha_).
Nyaya, however, would not regard it as vicious at all. It is well to
remember that the Indian systems acknowledge two kinds of
_anavastha_--_prama@niki_ (valid infinite, as in case of the question
of the seed and the tree, or of the avidya and the passions), and another
_aprama@niki anavastha_ (vicious infinite) as when the admission of
anything invokes an infinite chain before it can be completed.]


they admitted dravya, gu@na, karma and samanya, 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
before but was newly produced. This is what is called the
doctrine of _asatkaryavada_. This is just the opposite of the
Sa@mkhya axiom, that what is existent cannot be destroyed _nabhavo
vidyate sata@h_) and that the non-existent could never be
produced (_nasato vidyate bhavah_). The objection to this view is
that if what is non-existent is produced, then even such impossible
things as the hare's horn could also be produced. The
Nyaya-Vais'e@sika answer is that the view is not that anything
that is non-existent can be produced, but that which is produced
was non-existent [Footnote ref 1].

It is held by Mima@msa that an unseen power resides in the
cause which produces the effect. To this Nyaya 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
(_anyathasiddhis'unyasya niyatapurvavarttita_). Unconditionality
and invariability are indispensable for _karyakara@na-bhava_ or
cause and effect relation. For example, the non-essential or
adventitious accompaniments of an invariable antecedent may also
be invariable antecedents; but they are not unconditional, only
collateral or indirect. In other words their antecedence is conditional
upon something else (_na svatantrye@na_). The potter's stick is an
unconditional invariable antecedent of the jar; but the colour


[Footnote 1: _Nyayamunjari_, p. 494.]


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 akas'a (ether) as the
substrate and vayu (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
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 Nyaya would accept only in the sense of
an operation analysable into molar or molecular motion (_parispanda
eva bhautiko vyapara@h karotyartha@h atindriyastu vyaparo
nasti._ Jayanta's Manjari Ahnika 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 Nyaya all
energy is necessarily kinetic. This is a peculiarity of Nyaya--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 Sa@mkhya conception of power or productive


[Footnote 1: Dr P.C. Ray's _Hindu Chemistry_, 1909, pp. 249-250.]


efficiency as metaphysical or transcendental (_atindriya_) and finds
nothing in the cause other than unconditional invariable complements
of operative conditions (_kara@na-samagri_), 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
(_kala_), the will of Is'vara, destiny (_ad@r@s@ta_) are regarded
as the common cause of all effects (_karyatva-prayojaka_). Those are
called _sadhara@na-kara@na_ (common cause) as distinguished from the
specific causes which determine the specific effects which are called
_sadhara@na kara@na_. It may not be out of place here to notice that
Nyaya 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,
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
_samavayi-kara@na_ of the jug. _Samavaya_ means as we have seen
an intimate, inseparable relation of inherence. A kara@na is called
_samavayi_ when its materials are found inseparably connected
with the materials of the effect. Asamavayi-kara@na is that which
produces its characteristics in the effect through the medium of
the samavayi 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 asamavayi cause of the jug.
Any quality (_gu@na_) or movement which existing in the samavaya
cause in the samavaya relation determines the characteristics of
the effect is called the asamavayi-kara@na. The instrumental


[Footnote 1: Dr P.C. Ray's _Hindu Chemistry_, 1909, pp. 249-250.]

[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.
_Nyayamanjari Bha@sa-pariccheda_, with _Muktavali_ and _Dinakari_, and
_Tarkas@mgraha_. The doctrine of Anyathasiddhi was systematically
developed from the time of Ga@nges'a.]


_nimitta_ and accessory (_sahakari_) 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 sahakari
causes of the effect.

We know that the Nyaya-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 parima@nas of dvya@nukas and trasare@nus which are not produced
by the parima@nas of an a@nu or a dya@nuka, but by their
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 Mima@msa [Footnote ref 1]. According to the Nyaya-Vais'e@sika
view Is'vara wishing to give some respite or rest to all living beings
desires to bring about dissolution (_sa@mhareccho 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 Is'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 vayu. These disintegrated atoms and the souls associated
with dharma, adharma and past impressions (_sa@mskara_) 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


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


atoms do not conglomerate. It is not an act of cruelty on the
part of Is'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, Is'vara wishes to create and this desire
of Is'vara works in all the souls as ad@r@s@ta. This one eternal
desire of Is'vara under certain conditions of time (e.g. of pralaya)
as accessory causes (_sahakari_) 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 vayu 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
with one another and the dvya@nukas are formed and then in a
similar way the trya@nukas are formed, and thus vayu originates.
After vayu, 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 Brahma and all the worlds are created by
Is'vara and Brahma is directed by Is'vara to do the rest of the
work. Brahma thus arranges for the enjoyment and suffering of
the fruits of diverse kinds of karma, good or bad. Is'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 Is'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 Nyaya
books do not speak of the appointment of a Brahma 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 (_lila_) of Is'vara.
Is'vara is one, for if there were many Is'varas they might quarrel.
The will of Is'vara not only brings about dissolution and creation,


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


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
(_iccha_) of Is'vara may thus be compared with the _iccha_ of Is'vara
as we find it in the Yoga system.

Proof of the Existence of Is'vara.

Sa@mkhya asserts that the teleology of the prak@rti is sufficient
to explain all order and arrangement of the cosmos. The
Mima@msakas, the Carvakas, the Buddhists and the Jains all
deny the existence of Is'vara (God). Nyaya believes that Is'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
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
Is'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 Nyaya 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?


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
Is'vara. This cause we cannot see, because Is'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 Nyaya
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 Is'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 Nyaya-Vais'e@sika Physics.

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. Akas'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 _Nyayamanjari,_ pp. 190-204, and Udayana's
_Kusumanjali_ with _Prakas'a_ and _Is'varanumana_ of Raghunatha.]

[Footnote 2: _Kadacit tribhirarabhyate iti trya@nukamityucyate, kadacit
caturbhirarabhyate kadacit pancabhiriti yathe@s@ta@m kalpana.
Nyayakandali_, p. 32.]


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 Is'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 (_pakajotpatti_)"
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 re-combination,
under the influence of heat. This doctrine is called the doctrine
of _pilupaka_ (heating of atoms). Nyaya 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 Nyaya directly affects
the characters of the molecules and changes their qualities without
effecting a change in the atoms. Nyaya 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@tharapaka_ (heating of molecules). This
is one of the few points of difference between the later Nyaya
and Vais'e@sika systems [Footnote ref 2].

Chemical compounds of atoms may take place between the


[Footnote 1: Utpala's commentary on _Brhatsamh@ita_ I. 7.]

[Footnote 2: See Dr B.N. Seal in P.C. Ray's _Hindu Chemistry_, pp. 190-191,
_Nyayamanjari_, p 438, and Udyotakara's _Varttika_. There is very little
indication in the Nyaya and _Vais'e@sika sutras_ that they had any of
those differences indicated here. Though there are slight indications of
these matters in the _Vais'e@sika sutras_ (VII. 1), the _Nyaya sutras_ are
almost silent upon the matter. A systematic development of the theory
of creation and atomic combinations appear to have taken place after


atoms of the same bhuta or of many bhutas. According to the
Nyaya view there are no differences in the atoms of the same
bhuta, and all differences of quality and characteristics of the
compound of the same bhuta 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 bhuta 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'astapada (the commentator of Vais'e@sika) holds that in
the higher compounds of the same bhuta the transformation takes
place (under internal heat) in the constituent atoms of the compound
molecules, atoms specially determined as the compound
and not in the original atoms of the bhuta 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 bhuta 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 bhutas) are broken up into homogeneous earth
atoms, and it is these that chemically combine under the animal
heat and biomotor force vayu 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 _arambhaka-sa@myoga_.


[Footnote 1: See Dr B.N. Seal's _Positive Sciences,_ pp. 104-108, and
_Nyayakandali_, pp. 33-34, "_S'arirarambhe paramanava eva kara@nam na
s'ukra-s'onitasannipata@h kriyavibhagadinyayena tayorvinas'e sati
utpannapakajai@h parama@nubhirarambhat, na ca s'ukras'onitaparama@nuna@m
kas'cidvis'e@sa@h parthivatvavis'e@sat....Pitu@h s'ukra@m matuh s'onita@m
tayos sannipatanantara@m ja@tharanalasambandhat s'ukra-s'onitarambhake@su
parama@nu@su purvarupadivinas'e sama@nagu@nantarotpattau
dvya@nukadikrame@na kalalas'arirotpatti@h tatrantahkara@napraves'o...tatra
maturahararaso matraya sa@mkramate, ad@r@s@tavas'attatra
punarja@tharanalasambandhat kalalarambhakaparama@nu@su
kriyavibhagadinyayena kalalas'arire na@s@te samutpannapakajai@h
upajatakriyairaharaparama@nitbhi@h saha sambhuya


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
qualities under the impact of heat corpuscles. Other compounds
are also possible where the ap, tejas, or the vayu 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 inter-atomic spaces with _parispanda_
of the nature of deflection or refraction (_tiryag-gamana_).
In other cases heat rays may impinge on the atoms and rebound
back--which explains reflection. Lastly heat may strike the
atoms in a peculiar way, so as to break up their grouping, transform
the physico-chemical characters of the atoms, and again recombine
them, all by means of continual impact with inconceivable
velocity, an operation which explains all cases of chemical
combination [Footnote ref l]. Govardhana a later Nyaya writer says that
paka means the combination of different kinds of heat. The heat that


[Footnote 1: See Dr Seal's _Positive Sciences of the Hindus_.]


changes the colour of a fruit is different from that which generates
or changes the taste. Even when the colour and taste remain the
same a particular kind of heat may change the smell. When
grass eaten by cows is broken up into atoms special kinds of
heat-light rays change its old taste, colour, touch and smell into
such forms as those that belong to milk [Footnote ref 1].

In the Nyaya-Vais`e@sika system all action of matter on matter
is thus resolved into motion. Conscious activity (_prayatna_) is
distinguished from all forms of motion as against the Sa@mkhya
doctrine which considered everything other than puru@sa (intelligence)
to arise in the course of cosmic evolution and therefore
to be subject to vibratory motion.

The Origin of Knowledge (Prama@na).

The manner in which knowledge originates is one of the
most favourite topics of discussion in Indian philosophy. We
have already seen that Sa@mkhya-Yoga explained it by supposing
that the buddhi (place of consciousness) assumed the form of the
object of perception, and that the buddhi so transformed was
then intelligized by the reflection of the pure intelligence or puru@sa.
The Jains regarded the origin of any knowledge as being due to
a withdrawal of a veil of karma which was covering the all-intelligence
of the self.

Nyaya-Vais`e@sika regarded all effects as being due to the assemblage
of certain collocations which unconditionally, invariably,
and immediately preceded these effects. That collocation (_samagri_)
which produced knowledge involved certain non-intelligent as well
as intelligent elements and through their conjoint action uncontradicted
and determinate knowledge was produced, and this collocation is thus
called prama@na or the determining cause of the origin of knowledge
[Footnote ref 2]. None of the separate elements composing


[Footnote 1: Govardhana's _Nyayabodhini_ on _Tarkasa@mgraha_, pp. 9, 10.]

[Footnote 2: "_Avyabhicarinimasandigdharthopalabdhi@m vidadhati
bodhabodhasvabhava samagri prama@nam._" _Nyayamanjari_, p. 12.
Udyotakara however defined "prama@na" as upalabdhihetu (cause of
knowledge). This view does not go against Jayanta's view which I have
followed, but it emphasizes the side of vyapara or movement of
the senses, etc. by virtue of which the objects come in contact with
them and knowledge is produced. Thus Vacaspati says: "_siddhamindriyadi,
asiddhanca tatsannikar@sadi vyaparayannutpadayan kara@na eva caritartha@h
kar@na@m tvindriyadi tatsannikar@sadi va nanyatra caritarthamiti
sak@sadupalabdhaveva phale vyapriyate._" _Tatparya@tika_, p. 15. Thus it
is the action of the senses as prama@na which is the direct cause of
the production of knowledge, but as this production could not have taken
place without the subject and the object, they also are to be regarded as
causes in some sense. _"Pramat@rprameyayo@h. pramane
caritarthatvamacaritarthatvam pramanasya tasmat tadeva phalahetu@h.
Pramat@rprameye tu phaloddes'ena prav@rtte iti taddhetu kathancit."
Ibid._ p. 16.]


the causal collocation can be called the primary cause; it is only
their joint collocation that can be said to determine the effect, for
sometimes the absence of a single element composing the causal
collocation is sufficient to stop the production of the effect. Of
course the collocation or combination is not an entity separated
from the collocated or combined things. But in any case it is the
preceding collocations that combine to produce the effect jointly.
These involve not only intellectual elements (e.g. indeterminate
cognition as qualification (vis'e@sa@na) in determinate perceptions,
the knowledge of li@nga in inference, the seeing of similar things in
upamana, the hearing of sound in s'abda) but also the assemblage
of such physical things (e.g. proximity of the object of perception,
capacity of the sense, light, etc.), which are all indispensable for
the origin of knowledge. The cognitive and physical elements
all co-operate in the same plane, combine together and produce
further determinate knowledge. It is this capacity of the collocations
that is called prama@na.

Nyaya argues that in the Sa@mkhya view knowledge originates
by the transcendent influence of puru@sa on a particular
state of buddhi; this is quite unintelligible, for knowledge does
not belong to buddhi as it is non-intelligent, though it contains
within it the content and the form of the concept or the percept
(knowledge). The puru@sa to whom the knowledge belongs, however,
neither knows, nor feels, neither conceives nor perceives, as
it always remains in its own transcendental purity. If the transcendental
contact of the puru@sa with buddhi is but a mere semblance
or appearance or illusion, then the Sa@mkhya has to admit
that there is no real knowledge according to them. All knowledge
is false. And since all knowledge is false, the Sa@mkhyists have
precious little wherewith to explain the origin of right knowledge.

There are again some Buddhists who advocate the doctrine
that simultaneously with the generation of an object there is the
knowledge corresponding to it, and that corresponding to the
rise of any knowledge there is the rise of the object of it. Neither
is the knowledge generated by the object nor the object by the
knowledge; but there is a sort of simultaneous parallelism. It is
evident that this view does not explain why knowledge should


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 Vijnana vadins, 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 prama@na be defined as _prapa@na_ (capacity
of being realized) then also it would not hold, for all things being
momentary according to the Buddhists, the thing known cannot
be realized, so there would be nothing which could be called
prama@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 Prama@nas of Nyaya.

We know that the Carvakas 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 (_anumana_);
Sa@mkhya added _s'abda_ (testimony) as the third source;


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

[Footnote 2: Discussing the question of the validity of knowledge Ganges'a,
a later naiyayika of great fame, says that it is derived as a result of
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. _Tattvacintama@ni_, K.
Tarkavagis'a's edition, _Prama@nyavada_.

"The _Vais'e@sika sutras_ tacitly admit the Vedas as a prama@na. The view
that Vais'e@sika only admitted two prama@nas, perception and inference, is
traditionally accepted, _"pratyak@sameka@mcarvaka@h ka@nadasugatau puna@h
anumananca taccapi,_ etc." Pras'astapada divides all cognition (_buddhi_)
as _vidya_ (right knowledge) and _avidya_ (ignorance). Under _avidya_ he
counts _sa@ms'aya_ (doubt or uncertainty), _viparyaya_ (illusion or
error), _anadhyavasaya_ (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 (_vidya_) is of four kinds,
perception, inference, memory and the supernatural knowledge of the sages
(_ar@sa_). Interpreting the _Vais'e@sika sutras_ 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. _Arthapatti_ (implication) and
_anupalabdhi_ (non-perception) are also classed as inference and _upamana_
(analogy) and _aitihya_ (tradition) are regarded as being the same as
faith in trustworthy persons and hence cases of inference.]


Nyaya adds a fourth, _upamana_ (analogy). The principle on which
the four-fold division of prama@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 prama@nas, though
they point to the same object indicated by the perception. Nyaya
thus objects to the incorporation of s'abda (testimony) or upamana
within inference, on the ground that since the mode of production
of knowledge is different, these are to be held as different
prama@nas [Footnote ref 1].

Perception (Pratyak@sa).

The naiyayikas admitted only the five cognitive senses which
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
akas'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 (_vak, pani, pada, payu_, and _upastha_) recognized
in Sa@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:

_Samagribhedai phalabhedacca prama@nabheda@h
Anye eva hi samagriphale pratyak@sali@ngayo@h
Anye eva ca samagriphale s'abdopamanayo@h. Nyayamanjari_, p. 33.]


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'abda-prama@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
from the perceiving process of the contact of the senses with
the object. Of this nirvikalpa (indeterminate) perception it is
held by the later naiyayikas 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-samavaya_) in which they inhere in samavaya (inseparable)
relation, (3) contact with the gu@nas (such as colour etc.) in
the generic character as universals of those qualities, e.g. colourness
(rupatva), which inhere in the gu@nas in the samavaya relation.


[Footnote 1: Ganges'a, a later naiyayika of great reputation, describes
perception as immediate awareness (_pratyak@sasya sak@satkaritvam


This species of contact is called sa@myukta-samaveta-samavaya,
for the eye is in contact with the thing, in the thing the colour
is in samavaya relation, and in the specific colour there is the
colour universal or the generic character of colour in samavaya
relation. (4) There is another kind of contact called samavaya
by which sounds are said to be perceived by the ear. The auditory
sense is akas'a and the sound exists in akas'a in the samavaya
relation, and thus the auditory sense can perceive sound in a peculiar
kind of contact called samaveta-samavaya. (5) The generic
character of sound as the universal of sound (s'abdatva) is perceived
by the kind of contact known as samaveta-samavaya. (6) There is
another kind of contact by which negation (_abhava_) 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 Nyaya 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 Nyaya-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
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 _arthaprakas'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 Nyaya-Vais`e@sika are material and we have
seen that the system does not admit of any other kind of transcendental
(_atindriya_) power (_s'akti_) than that of actual vibratory


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
with the object itself of which the colour etc. are predicated. The
result of this sense-contact at the first stage is called _alocanajnana_
(sense-cognition) and as a result of that there is roused the
memory of its previous taste and a sense of pleasurable character
(_sukhasadhanatvasm@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 (sahakari). 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.
Sense-contact with the object is thus the primary and indispensable
condition of all perceptions and not only can the senses
be in contact with the objects, their qualities, and the universals
associated with them but also with negation. A perception is
erroneous when it presents an object in a character which it does
not possess (_atasmi@mstaditi_) and right knowledge (_prama_) is that
which presents an object with a character which it really has


[Footnote 1:

_Na khalvatindriya s'aktirasmabhirupagamyate
yaya saha na karyyasya sambandhajnanasambhava@h.

Nyayamanjari_, p. 69.]

[Footnote 2:

_Sukhadi manasa buddhva kapitthadi ca cak@su@sa
tasya karanata tatra manasaivavagamyate...
...Sambandhagraha@nakale yattatkapitthadivi@sayamak@sajam
jnanam tadupadeyadijnanaphalamiti bha@syak@rtas'cetasi sthitam

_Nyayamanjari_, pp. 69-70; see also pp. 66-71.]


(_tadvati tatprakarakanubhava_) [Footnote ref 1]. In all cases of
perceptual illusion the sense is in real contact with the right object,
but it is only on account of the presence of certain other conditions
that it is associated with wrong characteristics or misapprehended as
a different object. Thus when the sun's rays are perceived in a
desert and misapprehended as a stream, at the first indeterminate
stage the visual sense is in real contact with the rays and thus
far there is no illusion so far as the contact with a real object is
concerned, but at the second determinate stage it is owing to the
similarity of certain of its characteristics with those of a stream
that it is misapprehended as a stream [Footnote ref 2]. Jayanta observes
that on account of the presence of the defect of the organs or the rousing
of the memory of similar objects, the object with which the sense
is in contact hides its own characteristics and appears with the
characteristics of other objects and this is what is meant by
illusion [Footnote ref 3]. In the case of mental delusions however there is
no sense-contact with any object and the rousing of irrelevant
memories is sufficient to produce illusory notions [Footnote ref 4]. This
doctrine of illusion is known as _viparitakhyati_ or _anyathakhyati._ What
existed in the mind appeared as the object before us (_h@rdaye
parisphurato'rthasya bahiravabhasanam_) [Footnote ref 5]. Later Vais'e@sika
as interpreted by Pras'astapada and S'ridhara is in full agreement
with Nyaya in this doctrine of illusion (_bhrama_ or as Vais'e@sika
calls it _viparyaya_) that the object of illusion is always the right
thing with which the sense is in contact and that the illusion
consists in the imposition of wrong characteristics [Footnote ref 6].

I have pointed out above that Nyaya divided perception into
two classes as nirvikalpa (indeterminate) and savikalpa (determinate)
according as it is an earlier or a later stage. Vacaspati
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 _Nyayavarttika_, p. 37, and Ga@nges'a's
_Tattvacintama@ni,_ p. 401, _Bibliotheca Indica_.]

[Footnote 2: "_Indriye@nalocya maricin uccavacamuccalato nirvikalpena
g@rhitva pas'cattatropaghatado@sat viparyyeti, savikalpako'sya pratyayo
bhranto jayate tasmadvijnanasya uvabhicaro narthasya,_ Vacaspati's
_Tatparyatika_," p. 87.]

[Footnote 3: _Nyayamanjari,_ p. 88.]

[Footnote 4: _Ibid._ pp. 89 and 184.]

[Footnote 5: _Ibid._ p. 184.]

[Footnote 6: _Nyayakandali,_ pp. 177-181, "_S'uktisa@myuktenendriye@na
do@sasahakarina rajatasa@mskarasacivena sad@rs'yamanurundhata
s'uktikavi@sayo rajatadhyavasaya@h k@rta@h._"]


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 (_jatyadisvarupavagahi na tu jatyadina@m mitho
vis'e@sa@navis'e@syabhavavagahiti yavat_) [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'ridhara, in explaining the Vais'e@sika view, seems to be largely
in agreement with the above view of Vacaspati. Thus S'ridhara 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
consciously ordered as "different from this" or "similar to this,"
which can only take place at the savikalpa stage [Footnote ref 3].
Vacaspati 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 Nyaya
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: _Tatparya@tika_, p. 81, also _ibid._ p. 91,
"_prathamamalocito'rtha@h samanyavis'e@savan._"]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid._ p.84, "_tasmadvyutpannasyapi namadheyasmara@naya
purvame@sitavyo vinaiva namadheyamarthapratyaya@h._"]

[Footnote 3: _Nyayakandali,_p. 189 ff., "_ata@h savikalpakamicchata
nirvikalpakamapye@sitavyam, tacca na samanyamatram g@rh@nati bhedasyapi
pratibhasanat napi svalak@sa@namatram samanyakarasyapi sa@mvedanat
vyaktyantaradars'ane pratisandhanacca, kintu samanya@m
vis'e@sancobhayamapi g@rh@nati yadi paramida@m samanyamayam vis'e@sa@h
ityeva@m vivicya na pratyeti vastvantaranusandhanavirahat,
pi@ndantaranuv@rttigraha@naddhi samanya@m vivicyate,
vyav@rttigraha@nadvis'e@soyamiti viveka@h._"]


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@styajnanam prati hi vis'e@sa@natavacchedakaprakara@m
jnana@m kara@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 (_jatyadiyojanarahita@m
vais'i@s@tyanavagahi ni@sprakarakam nirvikalpaka@m_) [Footnote ref 2].
But this stage is never psychologically experienced (_atindriya_)
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'vanatha says in his Siddhantamuktavali,
"the cognition which does not involve relationing
cannot be perceptual for the perception is of the form 'I know
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@natavacchedaka_) 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 Nyaya 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 jati (universal), gu@na (quality),


[Footnote 1: _Tattvacintama@ni_ p. 812.]

[Footnote 2: _Ibid_. p. 809.]

[Footnote 3: _Siddhantamuktavali_ on _Bha@sapariccheda karika_, 58.]


kriya (action), nama (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 Nyaya ontological position with that of the Buddhists,
for we know that Nyaya and Vais'e@sika believe jati, gu@na
and kriya 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 Vacaspati 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 Vacaspati says that through the help of
memory or past impressions (_sa@mskara_) 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: _Nyayamanjari_, pp. 93-100, "_Panca caite kalpana bhavanti
jatikalpana, gu@nakalpana, kriyakalpana, namakalpana dravyakalpana ceti,
tas'ca kvacidabhede'pi bhedakalpanat kvacicca bhede'pyabhedakalpanat
kalpana ucyante._" See Dharmakirtti's theory of Perception, pp. 151-4.
See also pp. 409-410 of this book.]


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 Vacaspati'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 Nyaya-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 Vedanta, 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
the variety of causal collocations.

Mind according to Nyaya is regarded as a separate sense
and can come in contact with pleasure, pain, desire, antipathy
and will. The later Nyaya writers speak of three other kinds
of contact of a transcendental nature called _samanyalak@sa@na,
jnanalak@sa@na_ and _yogaja_ (miraculous). The contact samanyalak@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. Jnanalak@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: _Tatparya@tika_, pp. 88-95.]


possible is called jnanalak@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 Nyaya
to be different from knowledge (jnana). 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
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:_Siddhantamuktavali_ on _Karika_ 63 and 64. We must remember
that Ga@nges'a discarded the definition of perception as given in the
_Nyaya sutra_ 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
(_Tattvacintama@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.]


and this may happen to be true. This is called pratibhanajnana,
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 manasa-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 Vedanta this acquired perception
is only a case of inference. The pratibha-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 anuvyavasaya, and all practical work can
proceed as a result of this anuvyavasaya [Footnote ref. l].


Inference (_anumana_) is the second means of proof (prama@na)
and the most valuable contribution that Nyaya has made has
been on this subject. It consists in making an assertion about a
thing on the strength of the mark or linga 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 linga, 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 sadhya. To make a correct inference it is
necessary that the hetu or linga must be present in the pak@sa,


[Footnote 1: This later Nyaya doctrine that the cognition of self in
association with cognition is produced at a later moment must be
contrasted with the _triputipratyak@sa_ doctrine of Prabhakara, which
holds that the object, knower and knowledge are all given simultaneously
in knowledge. Vyavasaya (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) vyavasaya (cognition), "_idamaha@m
janamiti vyavasaye na bhasate taddhakendriyasannikar@sabhavat
kintvida@mvi@sayakajnanatvavis'i@s@tasya jnanasya vais'i@styamatmani
bhasate; na ca svaprakas'e vyavasaya tad@rs'a@m svasya vais'i@s@tya@m
bhasitumarhati, purva@m vis'e@sa@nasya tasyajnanat, tasmadidamaha@m
janamiti na vyavasaya@h kintu anuvyavasayah." _Tattvacintama@ni_, p. 795.]


and in all other known objects similar to the pak@sa in having the
sadhya in it (sapak@sa-satta), i.e., which are known to possess the
sadhya (possessing fire in the present example). The linga must
not be present in any such object as does not possess the
sadhya (_vipak@sa-vyav@rtti_ absent from vipak@sa or that which does
not possess the sadhya). The inferred assertion should not be
such that it is invalidated by direct perception {_pratyak@sa_) or
the testimony of the s'astra (_abadhita-vi@sayatva_). The linga
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 hetvabhasa 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 hetvabhasa is technically
called _asiddha-hetu_. Again, hetvabhasa 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
created" is present in the opposite of sadhya {_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 _anaikantika-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 sadhya), as well
as in things that are not eternal (i.e. which do not possess the
sadhya), and therefore the concomitance of the hetu with the
sadhya is not absolute (_anaikantika_). A fallacy of the fourth
type, technically called _kalatyayapadi@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 Nyaya did not believe in the
doctrine of the eternality of sound, which the Mima@msa did. Eternality
of sound meant with Mima@msa 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.]


since no eternal qualities are found in it, and sound like
akas'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 Carvakas, that inferential arguments are
valid, because they are arguments on the principle of the uniformity
of nature in two relations, viz. _tadatmya_ (essential
identity) and _tadutpatti_ (succession in a relation of cause and
effect). Tadatmya 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 co-inherence of
the generic qualities of a tree with the specific characters of a
pine tree may be viewed as a relation of essential identity
(_tadatmya_). The relation of tadutpatti is that of uniformity of
succession of cause and effect, e.g. of smoke to fire.

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


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

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


[Footnote 1: See _Antarvyaptisamarthana,_ by Ratnakaras'anti in the _Six
Buddhist Nyaya Tracts, Bibliotheca Indica_, 1910.]


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

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


[Footnote 1: See _Tatparya@tika_ on anumana and vyaptigraha.]

[Footnote 2: _Tatparya@tika_ on vyaptigraha, and _Tattvacintama@ni_ of
Ga@nges'a on vyaptigraha.]


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


[Footnote 1: Vatsyaya@na's bhasya, Udyotakara's _Varttika_ and
_Tatparyya@tika,_ I.i. 5.]


fire). Kevalanvayi is that type of inference, the vyapti of which
could not be based on any negative instance, as in the case
"this object has a name, since it is an object of knowledge
(_ida@m, vacyam prameyatvat_)." Now no such case is known which

Book of the day: